     
 
The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> GoodOlfactory Investigation (2010), To desysop or not to desysop, that is the question
MaliceAforethought
post Wed 6th July 2011, 5:33am
Post #1


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



From s____thearbitrator at gmail.com Tue Jan 5 18:10:44 2010
From: s____thearbitrator at gmail.com
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 14:10:44 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Question for new arbitrators

It wasn't the first thing I did - I had a troll through some of the high
profile cases first - but I did get round to that. My favourite of the
limited mentions of me was an e-mail from FT2 in which I was mentioned as
tangentially connected to the Good Olfactory situation. The long and the
short of it is that I got checkusered because I shared a name with [[{redacted, WP BLP subject}]] and have edited his article. The checkuser discovered that I
was, just as I claimed, editing from New Brunswick, which FT2 correctly
noted was a long way from any of the other universities involved in the
case.

What he didn't mention is that one of those other universities, the
<redacted> (one of the accounts involved had a <redacted> e-mail
address), is one at which I was a student for several years, and which is
located in my home town. I even edited from there some this summer.

Anyway, the conclusion that I was entirely unrelated to the situation was
the correct one, but the coincidences ran a little deeper than reported.

There is no reason that any of you would care about any of this.

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:02 PM, David Yellope <dyellope.wiki at gmail.com>wrote:

> Yes, not a good showing by the Old Guard there. I think I owe you an
> apology, I think I remember a couple heated discussions on IRC during and
> after that.
>
> As I said, that shows what too much openness would do. If the Old Guard
> thought there was a pitchforks and torches lynch mob then, if those posts on
> ArbCom-L had been made public, it would have been 15x worse.
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <
> newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I assumed that you would run straight to find out what the heck we were
>> thinking in the Mantanmoreland case, just as I'm sure CHL did exactly the
>> same thing a year ago.
>>
>> Newyorkbrad
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:40 PM, David Yellope <dyellope.wiki at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Have to admit, when I realized I had been elected, the first thought was
>>> "Gee.. I wonder what was said about me during the MM case".... smile.gif
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Hersfold <hersfoldwiki at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok, figured it out. Let me at those biscuits!
>>>>
>>>> ----
>>>> User:Hersfoldhersfoldwiki at gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Risker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2010/1/5 Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com>
>>>>
>>>>> Or you go back to the e-mail you got when you were first subscribed,
>>>>> note the password and your e-mail address, follow the links, keep
>>>>> trying until you get in, and then start reading. Let us know when you
>>>>> finish. When you get back here, all the biscuits will be gone.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, not all the biscuits. We'll probably not bother with the Social
>>>> Teas.
>>>>
>>>> The email would have been sent to you within a very short time after the
>>>> announcement of this year's appointments, and it would have come directly
>>>> from the mailman software. Let us know if you can't find it, and one of us
>>>> will walk you through getting a new password.
>>>>
>>>> Risker/Anne
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Fri Feb 26 06:09:23 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:09:23 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Good Olfactory (redux infinitum)
Message-ID: <206791b11002252209m525133c5yc00b7a3f838191c2@mail.gmail.com>

FT2 asked asked on functionaries what happened with the Good Olfactory
situation. My view on what happened is that we came close to doing
something, but while there was a strong case, there was enough doubt
and inefficiency that this got dropped through inaction. If this did
all happen just before the new arbs came in (I can't remember), would
one of them like to review that and give fresh opinions? If so, I can
dig out some links, and I will say that we are taking another look at
this (note that Good Olfactory commented at a recent arbitration
request, though I can't remember which one).

Carcharoth
-----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Fri Feb 26 13:23:23 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 07:23:23 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Good Olfactory (redux infinitum)
In-Reply-To: <206791b11002252209m525133c5yc00b7a3f838191c2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b11002252209m525133c5yc00b7a3f838191c2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd11002260523x35ad488dp80ee86c5160773b6@mail.gmail.com>

Yeah. There's a pretty good case. Timing, interests, and some emails
apparently match. Both have ties to New Zealand and Canada. No overlap (he
quit Snocrates and started Good Ol' Factory), but he apparently lied on his
RFA about his prior account.

I was asking Good Ol'Factory questions to see if he had a satisfactory
explaination. It was a "I know him it real life and just happened to start
editing after he quit" kind of thing. He's a prolific contributor in a
topic I'm familiar with (Mormonism). Probably the most prolific non-Mormon
who works on the topic, and he does good NPOV. I'm recused as I don't want
to see him leave, but FT2 has apparently been working on this for over a
year. Has his supposed real world identity (with an AUTOBIO issue, which
FT2 thinks is a COI issue on his Mormon editing, but I don't think
professional expertise in Mormonism should disqualify one from editing the
topic) and FT2 apparently does not want to let it drop.

I would also add that Jordan Smith, a fellow in Kansas City, has been
pushing this theory. Smith has sent a lot of material on both me and Good
Ol'Factory to the Foundation. He believed the accounts were linked because
both of them opposed him on the Temple Lot articles. He accuses us of
harassing him.

Frank
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 08:46:18 2010
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:46:18 -0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
Message-ID: <4b88dbdc.0f67f10a.2d58.2280@mx.google.com>

Unless there is some very novel explanation, try this approach:

(Didn't want to post this on funcs-en as it contains his old account name
"s_____" and his real-world information, and he is a {yada yada} person in
real life.)





DRAFT:





Dear Good Olfactory,



Apologies for the delay in returning to the sock case. It's been in limbo a
long time now (these issues were first raised almost 18 months ago, around
the time of your RFA as Good Olfactory).



In brief, it's pretty clear you were Snocrates and Zopoorific. You were also
S_____, your real world identity, and (very likely) Beigestudent. Possibly
others too but we stopped counting at four socks. Identifying the socks also
meant proving the sock-user was the same one person, which we have done:
you are {redacted...},
which is of course where the Alberta, Harvard, and NZ connections of these
socks come from. You also attempted to deceive Wizardman, when he wrote as
a sitting arbitrator, you used admin tools in a content dispute, you lied at
RFA about having prior accounts, you posted notes to yourself, and so on.



The rest of the evidence is compelling. You made a large number of very
obvious sock-user mistakes. Because you have a history of hardened deception
these are not being explained in detail, but it's had many independent
eyeballs, including some of our most experienced non-arbcom sock checkers.
If you would like it independently reviewed by a mutually trusted
functionary or someone who has never seen the evidence before (eg on some
other project), that can be arranged.



Adminship is based on trust. You don't have that on Wikipedia any more.



Our interest is that you don't sock, and don't stack, and don't use
Wikipedia to push POV on your interests.



In simple terms, you must resign or will be desysopped, and some explanation
at AC/N will need to be given. Desysoppings get interest and there is a
chance others will find the same real-world tie-ups and evidence we found,
because none of it is especially buried. We can try to word it in a way
that gets least attention, but we cannot avoid explaining it.



The least public way to handle this would be if you resigned, stating
something like "following discussion with Arbcom", and we'll post a brief
summary something like this:



"Following investigation, administrator Good Olfactory was confirmed as a
reincarnation of Snocrates and Zoporific, and as such had misled the
community at RFA and elsewhere, edit/POV warred, and used tools in a content
matter. Following this confirmation, Good Olfactory has resigned his
adminship. He may regain them by <whatever>. In recognition of his past
contributions, and his wish to continue contributing, he will be allowed to
continue editing under this one account only, if the community permits it
and subject to any restrictions the community may wish to impose."



"The Committee notes that the case should have been addressed much sooner,
perhaps as long ago as 2008, but due to potential privacy reasons and lack
of certainty at the time of initial review, it was not. "



Your other known accounts account would not be identified publicly, but will
be blocked discreetly in some weeks time.



Being realistic, an appeal or denial is very unlikely to be believed and a
review is unlikely to conclude differently, because the evidence dos not
look even remotely borderline. We are amenable to requests that would help
this be as trouble-free for you as possible. If you edit legitimately and
without socking you may be able to come back eventually as an admin in good
standing. However if you sock again, then you are likely to be banned from
the site.



Your response and "where we go from here" is awaited.



xxx



For the Arbitration Committee.
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sat Feb 27 10:48:15 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 10:48:15 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
In-Reply-To: <4b88dbdc.0f67f10a.2d58.2280@mx.google.com>
References: <4b88dbdc.0f67f10a.2d58.2280@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <206791b11002270248g414381fpf609c7fd20bdde9c@mail.gmail.com>

<removing FT2 from the address line - he does set things up so his
address goes in there>

If some arbitrators who have not looked at this before could review
this and see if they agree with FT2's suggested approach, as well as
reviewing all the material listed here:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbc...:Good_Olfactory

And the material *not* listed there (in various e-mails), then we
might be able to get this one moving again.

Really, the one thing stopping this from being finally reviewed and
concluded is pulling together the different e-mail reports and
threads. If I get time, I will try and dig up links to the archives,
and try and lay it all out clearly on the arbwiki page (both Thatcher
and FT2 and Daniel all sent in material relating to this, and it gets
confusing).

But I won't be able to do that until tonight, so if someone else wants
to make a start, that would help. I also need to work out how to link
to archives from functionaries-en.

Carcharoth
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 15:30:16 2010
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:30:16 -0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
Message-ID: <4b893a8b.0e67f10a.750c.37e3@mx.google.com>

Side note: -

Actually best not mention "Harvard" -- it begs the question. The Harvard
connection is his accounts' email addresses, which aren't visible on the
wiki and were noticed during a review of private data at a WMF election.

Paul.
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 18:25:07 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:25:07 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email

I am intentionally copying FT2 here because I am advocating on this case,
and clearly have to recuse (being, among other things, the person who Jordan
Smith threatens in the same breath as this user).

{Redacted} is an expert on Mormon studies, but unlike the vast majority of
editors in this topic, he is not a faithful Mormon himself--in fact, he
tends to neutralize articles by trimming hagiography. If the committee
agrees that his identity is confirmed, he has clearly violated COI on
several occasions when he has cited his own work, ect. However, I do not
think it's the case that he has a COI on all of Mormonism. If that were so,
no expert could ever edit in their area of expertise; this would be a great
loss to the project, especially for an editor as prolific and beneficial as
Good Ol'Factory.

I make no argument on how you should handle the alleged sockpuppetry in
regards to his adminship, but I do strongly believe that topic banning this
user would be a large net negative for the encyclopedia.

I also believe that FT2's proposed email is highly offensive to an editor
who has made well over one hundred thousand useful contributions. Our
volunteer editors should not be treated this way, even if they did lie on
RFA to gain access to tools (which they have used productively). I'm
especially disturbed by the cavalier disregard for the user's privacy;
saying that a public explaination "cannot be helped." A significant reason
for this privacy being that an unbalanced ex-convict sends frequent missives
and phone calls to WMF, continually obsessing about the user. (Ask Cary
Bass.)

If the committee desires that he be desysopped, he should be given an
opportunity to request desysop without providing a public condemnation to
his stalker.

Frank
----------
From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 19:36:15 2010
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:36:15 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd11002271025g78cd1867m14163d268fdccde8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b893a8b.0e67f10a.750c.37e3@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002271025g78cd1867m14163d268fdccde8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3f797b9a1002271136v38885444hbe967c3942adc348@mail.gmail.com>

<list only>

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com
> wrote:

> If the committee desires that he be desysopped, he should be given an
> opportunity to request desysop without providing a public condemnation to
> his stalker.


Indeed. The whole purpose of having someone resign rather than be
desysopped is to allow them to save face; a public condemnation afterwards
would make the approach pointless.

Kirill
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 19:45:51 2010
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 19:45:51 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd11002271025g78cd1867m14163d268fdccde8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b893a8b.0e67f10a.750c.37e3@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002271025g78cd1867m14163d268fdccde8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e71d9fab1002271145w19f9b865s7cd1a7af05c9ea58@mail.gmail.com>

All reasonable points. The problem is that this isn't about his good edits,
or his stalker.

This is someone who lied to the community, and to those investigating, and
who has a huge amount to lose if others dig. There are claims of tool
abuse. It wasn't accidental and it wasn't a "once off". I agree it can be
offensive to write and tell a user "you lied and we need to talk about it",
and I agree he has a stalker (Jordan Smith) who is to be discouraged. But
neither of those made him do what he did.

To recap my suggestion, although I'm not one of those who has to make a
decision on it: -

- I can't see an easy way to avoid some announcement. Arbcom gets
hammered when there is a suspicion of concealing such things and too many
people have a suspicon of him and resignations get eyeballs, so if he steps
down with nothing said, one would expect rumors that he was pushed and
claims of "Arbcom protection/gaming"may be a result. It could be done (and
wider speculation ignored), but I am not sure if it would avoid a lot of
drama or any fallout.

- I'm also concerned to not encourage people to dig - and nothing makes
that more likely than allowing any perception that Arbcom hid something. The
post drafted was very much a "nothing to see here" to deter attention.
Silence doesn't deter digging. he has a hell of a lot more to lose if the
digging gets somewhere - and everything that's known, including that he is a
major legal scholar with a reputation for honesty to protect - is at risk if
digging happens. It's not very deeply concealed. Bluntly it may be better
AC discloses at a basic level and it looks boring, than it says nothing and
someone is encouraged to dig. This could be a big problem, best avoided.
Perhaps raise this with him and ask what he prefers?

- If an announcement were made, I would not advocate a topic ban. I'm
with Frank on this, he does a huge amount that's valuable. Point this out
and let the community decide if there's a concern. They tend to make such
decisions fairly thoughtfully when I've looked.

Hopefully this clarifies my thinking.
Paul.
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 20:28:51 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:28:51 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
In-Reply-To: <e71d9fab1002271145w19f9b865s7cd1a7af05c9ea58@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b893a8b.0e67f10a.750c.37e3@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002271025g78cd1867m14163d268fdccde8@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271145w19f9b865s7cd1a7af05c9ea58@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd11002271228s444f7402m2ec6f0580527ac32@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 1:45 PM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> - I'm also concerned to not encourage people to dig - and nothing makes
> that more likely than allowing any perception that Arbcom hid something. The
> post drafted was very much a "nothing to see here" to deter attention.
> Silence doesn't deter digging. he has a hell of a lot more to lose if the
> digging gets somewhere - and everything that's known, including that he is a
> major legal scholar with a reputation for honesty to protect - is at risk if
> digging happens. It's not very deeply concealed. Bluntly it may be better
> AC discloses at a basic level and it looks boring, than it says nothing and
> someone is encouraged to dig. This could be a big problem, best avoided.
> Perhaps raise this with him and ask what he prefers?
>
>
>
>
I think you're wrong on this point, and I think its patronizing and wrong to
make the decision for him.

If I was in his shoes, I would prefer that there be no announcement with an
understanding of the risks of exposure. Unless there's another JoshuaZ-type
leak, I actually think those risks are minimal--or smaller than the feeding
frenzy of an AC/N announcement. Have there ever been a quiet desysop
announcement? Discretely posting about Pastor Theo's desysop, for example,
led to his old accounts and real-world identity becoming public knowledge
within minutes. Good Olfactory has at least a fighting chance by dropping
the tools himself.

Honestly, people suspect an ArbCom cover-up no matter what we do, and your
proposed solution is no less of a coverup than mine is (quietly blocking the
identity-bearing accounts, for example). Most of this noise about coverups
doesn't go anywhere.

If we care about the user, we should give him the option to have an
announcement or not, with full understanding of the risks either way.
Without this option, he will probably fight the accusations--a public
condemnation is not a good way out for a someone who has a dedicated "fan"
like Jordan Smith.

As a final note, given Mike Godwin's recent dismay over posting potentially
damaging conclusions about David Gerard, I should hope that even an
involuntary desysop announcement would be less detailed as what you
proposed.

Frank
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 20:41:26 2010
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:41:26 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd11002271228s444f7402m2ec6f0580527ac32@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b893a8b.0e67f10a.750c.37e3@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002271025g78cd1867m14163d268fdccde8@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271145w19f9b865s7cd1a7af05c9ea58@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271228s444f7402m2ec6f0580527ac32@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e71d9fab1002271241r4b8acf11mafb1e5afc9ee85ad@mail.gmail.com>

I'd go with most of that, frank. Same concerns, different perspectives. The
point is he needs to understand how much is at risk. (Sounds familiar...?)

He won't be able to, if he thinks he can bluff it with the Committee. He's a
fluent concealer but a naive sock-user and his activities are transparent.
He probably doesn't realize that he could genuinely have issues reaching
off-wiki.

I'm not thinking of a JoshuaZ leaker here. I'm worried that "admin steps
down" gets eyeballs, and enough users know there were suspicions about him
and Snocrates to raise interests whether thats why. Others then who like to
show misconduct and coverups will investigate, primarily to prove wrongdoing
by Arbcom. In the process they may out him and prove a notable figure lied
on-wiki.

If he knows how much is known and the realities of the situation then
chooses, sure. My /advice/ then would be we try and explain to him that a
modest announcement (to sound boring) may be better than a quiet stepping
down, but it would need his co-operation.


Anyhow, nuff said, that's my concern.

Paul smile.gif
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 21:08:39 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:08:39 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
In-Reply-To: <e71d9fab1002271241r4b8acf11mafb1e5afc9ee85ad@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b893a8b.0e67f10a.750c.37e3@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002271025g78cd1867m14163d268fdccde8@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271145w19f9b865s7cd1a7af05c9ea58@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271228s444f7402m2ec6f0580527ac32@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271241r4b8acf11mafb1e5afc9ee85ad@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd11002271308q40d31008nf2b4a4425ea03b4f@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 2:41 PM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd go with most of that, frank. Same concerns, different perspectives. The
> point is he needs to understand how much is at risk. (Sounds familiar...?)
>


Actually, your whole approach here does sound familiar, which I find
inappropriate because this user is not Poetlister. He has not appropriated
names and images from other people, and he edits Wikipedia because he enjoys
(and is good at) creating content--this is not as a form of online roleplay
for him. Nobody has suggested that he has socked since he started the Good
Olfactory account in February 2008 (that's two years).




>
> He won't be able to, if he thinks he can bluff it with the Committee. He's
> a fluent concealer but a naive sock-user and his activities are transparent.
> He probably doesn't realize that he could genuinely have issues reaching
> off-wiki.
>
> I'm not thinking of a JoshuaZ leaker here. I'm worried that "admin steps
> down" gets eyeballs, and enough users know there were suspicions about him
> and Snocrates to raise interests whether thats why. Others then who like to
> show misconduct and coverups will investigate, primarily to prove wrongdoing
> by Arbcom. In the process they may out him and prove a notable figure lied
> on-wiki.
>
>

If I was this user, I would take a wiki-break of at least two weeks, and
retire the tools citing that reason (account security, a legitimate concern
given recent events). Once I return, I would just neglect to ask for them
back. If anyone asked, I would say that I'm happy as a content contributor
and that I don't miss the hassle of people screeching at me on ANI over
"abuse," so have never bothered to ask for them back.

As for the "others," you yourself are one of the more prominent users in
that category (cf. Geogre). If the ArbCom takes more discrete action than
what you have outlined, I hope that you will respect the decision.



> If he knows how much is known and the realities of the situation then
> chooses, sure. My /advice/ then would be we try and explain to him that a
> modest announcement (to sound boring) may be better than a quiet stepping
> down, but it would need his co-operation.
>
>
> Anyhow, nuff said, that's my concern.
>
> Paul smile.gif
>
>
Your proposed email will not secure his cooperation. I do believe that an
arbitrator can draft something workable, however.

Frank
----------
From KnightLago at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 21:59:32 2010
From: KnightLago at gmail.com (KnightLago)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:59:32 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd11002271308q40d31008nf2b4a4425ea03b4f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b893a8b.0e67f10a.750c.37e3@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002271025g78cd1867m14163d268fdccde8@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271145w19f9b865s7cd1a7af05c9ea58@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271228s444f7402m2ec6f0580527ac32@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271241r4b8acf11mafb1e5afc9ee85ad@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271308q40d31008nf2b4a4425ea03b4f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b82ef2a01002271359x5fb718d9k4fb60f892f959854@mail.gmail.com>

<Forwarded so this should be list only>

Is there any further reason for FT2 to participate in this? Do we just want
to tell him the committee will handle it and thank him for his assistance?
Admin socking sounds like something the entire committee should be looking
into/voting on anyway. And we should be drafting our own email telling the
subject what we want done in the end.

KL
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 22:10:46 2010
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:10:46 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
In-Reply-To: <b82ef2a01002271359x5fb718d9k4fb60f892f959854@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b893a8b.0e67f10a.750c.37e3@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002271025g78cd1867m14163d268fdccde8@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271145w19f9b865s7cd1a7af05c9ea58@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271228s444f7402m2ec6f0580527ac32@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271241r4b8acf11mafb1e5afc9ee85ad@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271308q40d31008nf2b4a4425ea03b4f@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271359x5fb718d9k4fb60f892f959854@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d31002271410y262c7c02i20742574220fcc29@mail.gmail.com>

How strong is the evidence of socking?

Is there any evidence of misconduct in the recent past?

Is there a case to be made for doing nothing at all?

Newyorkbrad
----------
From KnightLago at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 22:16:53 2010
From: KnightLago at gmail.com (KnightLago)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:16:53 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
In-Reply-To: <c52819d31002271410y262c7c02i20742574220fcc29@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b893a8b.0e67f10a.750c.37e3@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002271025g78cd1867m14163d268fdccde8@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271145w19f9b865s7cd1a7af05c9ea58@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271228s444f7402m2ec6f0580527ac32@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271241r4b8acf11mafb1e5afc9ee85ad@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271308q40d31008nf2b4a4425ea03b4f@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271359x5fb718d9k4fb60f892f959854@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d31002271410y262c7c02i20742574220fcc29@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b82ef2a01002271416l1866e2cag2f1956f7724a591e@mail.gmail.com>

Could someone who knows provide an executive summary of what occurred? Brad,
I was thinking the same thing. If this is a couple years in the past, and
nothing untoward has happened since, I am not sure we want to actually do
anything.

KL
----------
From KnightLago at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 22:39:26 2010
From: KnightLago at gmail.com (KnightLago)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:39:26 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: [Functionaries-en] (was Good Olfactory) Info on,
and closing functionaries
Message-ID: <b82ef2a01002271439i1a21be2cvbcb2a0e23d744bcc@mail.gmail.com>

This is the type of stuff that should not be discussed on functionaries. In
the future can we start directing people to email us directly? Where do we
stand on the new mailing lists?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 2:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Functionaries-en] Good Olfactory
To: Functionaries email list for the English Wikipedia <
functionaries-en at lists.wikimedia.org>


To recap where it got to, the latest I have is that it's pretty much proven
beyond any doubt that:

1. Good Olfactory == Snocrates == Zoporific == more than one other account
prior to these, which also edited identically, and which were also proven
beyond any doubt to be the same person.
3. It's not his brother, friend, co-worker, or anyone else. It's the same
one person.
4. The proof of this is in Arbcom's hands. It includes identical
non-fakeable data, work locations, identical styles and mannerisms,
identical uncommon interests, same wording at RFA, and strikingly exact edit
timings (attached) and verification IPs that perfectly match each other for
years despite the claim of the socks to be halfway round the world from each
other. To protect the user's real-world data it's not recirculated here; if
any arb has any doubt please check the evidence or ask me to clarify.
5. Anything that he has said to the contrary is therefore deception or
untruth, take your pick.
6. If desysop is required, a hint to the wise and a batch of evidence will
suffice. Not least to avoid stirring Jordan Smith, who is troublesome.

His actions include:

* "Lying" at his RFA when asked if he had any prior accounts (Thatcher email
26 oct)
* "Talking to himself", apparently also including using one sock to remove
templates related to another.
* Using admin tools on [[Temple Lot]] where he had a content interest (same)
* (Apparently) admin actions in any way connected to Mormonism, which would
be a COI
* Snocrates was never blocked or banned, but was caught socking in the
middle of his RFA and retired or abandoned the account. This is not a
banned user who gained adminship but someone with a past who gained
adminship under false pretenses..... since his RFA as Snocrates failed in
February 2008 due to socking, I suspect that the disclosure of his prior
account would have been "material" in July of 2008 (thatcher 26 oct)
* Applied for the roommate defense and was unblocked (thatcher 26 oct) -
this was also an untruth as an admin, although it was long ago. Had he been
known to have lied at his Feb RFA he would surely have failed his July RFA.
* More disturbingly when approached by Wizardman in November 2009 (writing
as a sitting arb), GO continued to lie. Each of the following statements is
demonstrably "beyond reasonable doubt" untrue: -

1/ "I did not lie in my RFA" (yes he did)
2/ "Good Olfactory has been my first and only account" (no it isn't, it's at
least his 5th)
3/ "I am Mike Robertson" (no he isn't)


The end view on this list was that someone should approach GO and tactfully
suggest the evidence was non-rebuttable and he needed to disclose and step
down, failing which AC would do it for him. It was then moved to arb-l and
presumably further email and discussion took place.

Paul.
----------
From KnightLago at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 22:58:09 2010
From: KnightLago at gmail.com (KnightLago)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:58:09 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
In-Reply-To: <b82ef2a01002271416l1866e2cag2f1956f7724a591e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b893a8b.0e67f10a.750c.37e3@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002271025g78cd1867m14163d268fdccde8@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271145w19f9b865s7cd1a7af05c9ea58@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271228s444f7402m2ec6f0580527ac32@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271241r4b8acf11mafb1e5afc9ee85ad@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271308q40d31008nf2b4a4425ea03b4f@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271359x5fb718d9k4fb60f892f959854@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d31002271410y262c7c02i20742574220fcc29@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271416l1866e2cag2f1956f7724a591e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b82ef2a01002271458n2043a97fl508ef86f4d383e8b@mail.gmail.com>

I missed it the first time around, but
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbc...od_Olfactoryhas
a decent summary.

KL
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 23:48:03 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:48:03 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
In-Reply-To: <b82ef2a01002271458n2043a97fl508ef86f4d383e8b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b893a8b.0e67f10a.750c.37e3@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002271025g78cd1867m14163d268fdccde8@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271145w19f9b865s7cd1a7af05c9ea58@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271228s444f7402m2ec6f0580527ac32@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271241r4b8acf11mafb1e5afc9ee85ad@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271308q40d31008nf2b4a4425ea03b4f@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271359x5fb718d9k4fb60f892f959854@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d31002271410y262c7c02i20742574220fcc29@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271416l1866e2cag2f1956f7724a591e@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271458n2043a97fl508ef86f4d383e8b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd11002271548t1f8ba601u4535bb1ca5db1e73@mail.gmail.com>

Short summary:

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...p/Snocrates(his
prior account's RFA, which died when his sock puppetry emerged).

Evidence linking all of these accounts is strong, IMO, but all the earlier
socks were abandoned when he started Good Olfactory on February 2008.

S_____ was mostly abandoned on September 29,
2007 (just
9 edits after that date until November, mostly wrapping up). On
September 30, Snocrates
emerged.<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&contribs=user&target=Snocrates>
Zaporific edited simultaneous to Snocrates for two weeks in February
2008.<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Zoporific>
This was confirmed by
CU<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Snocrates>,
with some sock abuse issues, obviously killing his RFA. Two days
later, on February
16, 2008, Good Olfactory started
up<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Good+Olfactory>,
as prolific as ever.

The Jordan Smith stuff started in December
2007<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Temple_Lot#Church_burning_incident>,
so I would not be surprised that he would not like to claim an account under
his real name (S_____). That said, he never claimed any of the accounts
when asked at RFA<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Good_Olfactory>in
July 2008 (nominated by Wizardman, BTW):

*Optional Question from
NuclearWarfare<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NuclearWarfare>
*
*5.* May we please have the account names of your former accounts? *A.* I've
had no former accounts on WP; the previous wiki experience referred to was
on non-WP wikis. Good
Ol?factory<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Good_Olfactory>
(talk) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Good_Olfactory> 14:30, 21
July 2008 (UTC)
If there are more recent issues, perhaps FT2 could summarize those.

NB, that the S_____ {redacted} was associated with the University of
{redacted, some place up north} as was (I believe) our own {redacted}.

Frank
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sun Feb 28 02:04:54 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 02:04:54 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: [Functionaries-en] (was Good Olfactory) Info on,
and closing functionaries
In-Reply-To: <b82ef2a01002271439i1a21be2cvbcb2a0e23d744bcc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b82ef2a01002271439i1a21be2cvbcb2a0e23d744bcc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b11002271804u2cd81448j710df8309652e4ef@mail.gmail.com>

Not sure. I think we sort of agreed to bundle the restructuring in
with the upcoming CU/OS elections, but do we want to do it sooner, and
if so, what are the formal steps (including a committee vote) that are
needed?

Carcharoth

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 10:39 PM, KnightLago <KnightLago at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is the type of stuff that should not be discussed on functionaries. In
> the future can we start directing people to email us directly? Where do we
> stand on the new mailing lists?
-----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sun Feb 28 02:16:23 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 02:16:23 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
In-Reply-To: <b82ef2a01002271458n2043a97fl508ef86f4d383e8b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b893a8b.0e67f10a.750c.37e3@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002271025g78cd1867m14163d268fdccde8@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271145w19f9b865s7cd1a7af05c9ea58@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271228s444f7402m2ec6f0580527ac32@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271241r4b8acf11mafb1e5afc9ee85ad@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271308q40d31008nf2b4a4425ea03b4f@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271359x5fb718d9k4fb60f892f959854@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d31002271410y262c7c02i20742574220fcc29@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271416l1866e2cag2f1956f7724a591e@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271458n2043a97fl508ef86f4d383e8b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b11002271816w615dfb44h9755e9cfcffabc60@mail.gmail.com>

That arbwiki page (unless someone updated it) doesn't include much
that was sent to this mailing and to functionaries.

On the overall matter, we first need to ascertain whether *as a
committee* we agree with the conclusions reached by FT2 and Thatcher
and others. I don't think there has ever been a formal committee vote
on that.

If action is needed, I suggest binning FT2's draft (for reasons I hope
are obvious) and someone here drafting something. More along the lines
of what Frank suggested. Giving Good Olfactory the options of quiet
resignation with no announcement, or desysopping (if the formal vote
passes) with an announcement. Saying the choice is up to him (largely
due to the stalker issue), and briefly explaining the effect a
noticeboard announcement might have, but stressing that the choice is
his and his alone.

Carcharoth

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 10:58 PM, KnightLago <KnightLago at gmail.com> wrote:
> I missed it the first time around, but
-----------
From kenneth at planetkh.com Sun Feb 28 03:48:35 2010
From: kenneth at planetkh.com (Kenneth Kua/ArbCom)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:48:35 +0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: [Functionaries-en] (was Good Olfactory) Info on,
and closing functionaries
In-Reply-To: <206791b11002271804u2cd81448j710df8309652e4ef@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b82ef2a01002271439i1a21be2cvbcb2a0e23d744bcc@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b11002271804u2cd81448j710df8309652e4ef@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ff56241002271948udcba9a7p18cea0cbf83fbeda@mail.gmail.com>

We can kill three birds in one stone, by making the major announcements at
one go :

1. Restructuring of mailing lists. It has been proposed that Oversight-l
would be switched to OTRS, and perhaps a local address be set up and the
current one freed up for global projects. Checkuser-en-l also might be set
up. Shut down or retire funct-l at the same time.
2. Earlier elections for new CU/OS.
3. Revival of the December 2009 motion regarding the regaining of CU/OS
tools by former CU/OS users. Given the recent events where arbitrators
object to a former CU/OS in regaining his tools, my worry is that if we go
by the conventional method of removal, there will be most likely a ruckus no
less than what happened last year. Given that it failed by one vote, we
might want to get this passed, and then be able to have the discretion to
direct him to run for the CU/OS elections (given his rationale, very
unlikely the community will ever accept him again).

Kenneth/MD
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Wed 6th July 2011, 5:43am
Post #2


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Tue Mar 2 20:25:39 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 20:25:39 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
In-Reply-To: <206791b11002271816w615dfb44h9755e9cfcffabc60@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b893a8b.0e67f10a.750c.37e3@mx.google.com>
<e71d9fab1002271145w19f9b865s7cd1a7af05c9ea58@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271228s444f7402m2ec6f0580527ac32@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271241r4b8acf11mafb1e5afc9ee85ad@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271308q40d31008nf2b4a4425ea03b4f@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271359x5fb718d9k4fb60f892f959854@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d31002271410y262c7c02i20742574220fcc29@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271416l1866e2cag2f1956f7724a591e@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271458n2043a97fl508ef86f4d383e8b@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b11002271816w615dfb44h9755e9cfcffabc60@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b11003021225p105b2942g32b7b44efe845138@mail.gmail.com>

Is this one dropping through the cracks again?

Carcharoth

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 2:16 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
> That arbwiki page (unless someone updated it) doesn't include much
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Thu Mar 4 05:14:47 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 23:14:47 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
In-Reply-To: <206791b11003021225p105b2942g32b7b44efe845138@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b893a8b.0e67f10a.750c.37e3@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002271228s444f7402m2ec6f0580527ac32@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271241r4b8acf11mafb1e5afc9ee85ad@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271308q40d31008nf2b4a4425ea03b4f@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271359x5fb718d9k4fb60f892f959854@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d31002271410y262c7c02i20742574220fcc29@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271416l1866e2cag2f1956f7724a591e@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271458n2043a97fl508ef86f4d383e8b@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b11002271816w615dfb44h9755e9cfcffabc60@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b11003021225p105b2942g32b7b44efe845138@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd11003032114w3686ef82qe177a2af5cdaa490@mail.gmail.com>

Anyone, Bueller? Bueller?



On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com>wrote:

> Is this one dropping through the cracks again?
>
> Carcharoth
----------
From wizardmanwiki at gmail.com Thu Mar 4 05:38:56 2010
From: wizardmanwiki at gmail.com (Wizardman)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 00:38:56 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd11003032114w3686ef82qe177a2af5cdaa490@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b893a8b.0e67f10a.750c.37e3@mx.google.com>
<e71d9fab1002271241r4b8acf11mafb1e5afc9ee85ad@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271308q40d31008nf2b4a4425ea03b4f@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271359x5fb718d9k4fb60f892f959854@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d31002271410y262c7c02i20742574220fcc29@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271416l1866e2cag2f1956f7724a591e@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271458n2043a97fl508ef86f4d383e8b@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b11002271816w615dfb44h9755e9cfcffabc60@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b11003021225p105b2942g32b7b44efe845138@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11003032114w3686ef82qe177a2af5cdaa490@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ef59f701003032138s6f1a7e7n8f5a25de9e586ed5@mail.gmail.com>

Well, I would do it, but, you know. Didn't work. I don't consider this that
high of a priority myself, granted.
~W

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Anyone, Bueller? Bueller?
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Thu Mar 4 13:50:38 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 13:50:38 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
In-Reply-To: <ef59f701003032138s6f1a7e7n8f5a25de9e586ed5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b893a8b.0e67f10a.750c.37e3@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002271308q40d31008nf2b4a4425ea03b4f@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271359x5fb718d9k4fb60f892f959854@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d31002271410y262c7c02i20742574220fcc29@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271416l1866e2cag2f1956f7724a591e@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271458n2043a97fl508ef86f4d383e8b@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b11002271816w615dfb44h9755e9cfcffabc60@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b11003021225p105b2942g32b7b44efe845138@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11003032114w3686ef82qe177a2af5cdaa490@mail.gmail.com>
<ef59f701003032138s6f1a7e7n8f5a25de9e586ed5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b11003040550l5f1e4e83j114fc7e59d242a54@mail.gmail.com>

If no-one else does this in a week, I'll take a look (not this
weekend, but the following one). It should really, though, be someone
who can explain checkuser results and the possibilities either way,
not someone trying to prove something they are already convinced of
(tones of that come across in some of the evidence submission). The
main task seems to be making contact with Good Olfactory and making
clear what we know (I can't remember how much Wizardman told him).

Carcharoth

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 5:38 AM, Wizardman <wizardmanwiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I would do it, but, you know. Didn't work. I don't consider this that
-----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Fri Mar 12 11:28:15 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:28:15 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
In-Reply-To: <206791b11003040550l5f1e4e83j114fc7e59d242a54@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b893a8b.0e67f10a.750c.37e3@mx.google.com>
<b82ef2a01002271359x5fb718d9k4fb60f892f959854@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d31002271410y262c7c02i20742574220fcc29@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271416l1866e2cag2f1956f7724a591e@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271458n2043a97fl508ef86f4d383e8b@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b11002271816w615dfb44h9755e9cfcffabc60@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b11003021225p105b2942g32b7b44efe845138@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11003032114w3686ef82qe177a2af5cdaa490@mail.gmail.com>
<ef59f701003032138s6f1a7e7n8f5a25de9e586ed5@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b11003040550l5f1e4e83j114fc7e59d242a54@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b11003120328l578eaca3y339cc7e7723da3b8@mail.gmail.com>

I suppose this meant I'd be looking at this this coming weekend, but
I'm struggling to find the motivation. Is it possible for people to
collaboratively update the arbwiki page on this, so we know what is
going on here? Once that gets going, I might re-discover some
enthusiasm for looking at this. Sorry to be so despondent on this, but
its one of those things that keeps getting left and we need to bring
some closure to this.

Carcharoth
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Tue Jun 15 02:15:32 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:15:32 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: complicated admin/socking question... looking for
advice. - FYI
Message-ID: <AANLkTil7UyIIxOmmbPCUPhrb50J34kPGrJW-E5BslBfJ@mail.gmail.com>

Including arbcom-L in the loop here.

There is little doubt that Floquenbeam is talking about Good Olfactory here.


As I speak, I am currently writing an email to GO, outlining the last
recommendation that we had on this mailing list earlier this year, which is
that he quietly resign his adminship, with the understanding that if he asks
for it to be reinstated without an RFA where he makes disclosure that he had
prior accounts, the skies will come crashing down.

I will be softening it somewhat with positive feedback on his work as an
editor and an administrator, which has largely been above average.

Nonetheless, if word is starting to spread around the community, it's time
to pull the plug on our own recalcitrance here. (Yes, I'm as much to blame
as anyone.) Until this point, there's been little or no community (i.e.,
non-functionary) concern voiced at this, and the Jordan Smith harassment
issue has been on my mind, if nobody else's.


Risker/Anne

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com>
Date: 14 June 2010 22:09
Subject: Re: complicated admin/socking question... looking for advice.
To: Floquenbeam X <floquenbeam at gmail.com>


Thanks, Floquenbeam.

At this point, if you'd be kind enough to shoot me the name of the accounts,
that will be a place to start, but please feel free to include anything else
that you think will be helpful.

Best,

Risker/Anne


On 14 June 2010 22:06, Floquenbeam X <floquenbeam at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, feel free to share this email, including my address, with anyone you'd
> like; I'm using email not to protect myself so much as to (as you say) avoid
> the drama of a public discussion. I'm not looking for anyone's head on a
> pike, so handling everything privately is more than fine with me. I'm 95%
> sure I know exactly what's going on, but I'd hate to make this public
> because of that 5% chance I've severely misjudged.
>
> I had to disassociate myself from a previous account name myself (discussed
> in excruciating detail in my own RFA), which I told Alison about back when I
> made the switch, so I understand the possible reasons; I'm just pretty sure
> none of them apply here.
>
> The nom for the RFA is an ex-Arb; not sure he's still on the mailing list
> or not, and I guess I'm not really that concerned. i have no reason to
> think he knew about the previous account, but I think that's a fair question
> to ask him.
>
> If there is no evidence of recent/continued socking, I'm not 100% yet that
> I'm pressing for a desysop (although that's my tentative inclination). All
> in all, I guess I'd be grudgingly relieved to leave this to ArbCom, even if
> it means giving up control of the decision on whether to move forward or
> not. That's why you folks make the big money.
>
> If you'd like, I'll prepare a short list of SPI/RFCU pages, account names,
> RFA links, etc.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -cab
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Floquenbeam -
>>
>> Thank you for your email. You raise several interesting and important
>> points.
>>
>> If the account is currently a productive admin, it's been my experience
>> that as a group they are very unlikely to resume problematic behaviour for
>> which they've been caught out in the past (even if on another account). It's
>> likely, however, that a checkuser would be run at some point during any
>> public or private discussion with the admin, just to be on the safe side.
>> The results of the prior SPI would probably play a role.
>>
>> On the other hand, the deception at RFA is a significant concern; it's
>> recent enough that a prior account (even if it was not publicly disclosed,
>> or was disclosed only to a checkuser/functionary) would normally have been
>> considered a material fact in the RFA. There may be other factors in play
>> when people actively dissociate themselves from prior accounts (there have
>> been far more, and far more serious, episodes of user harassment than is
>> publicly acknowledged, for example), but the option to discuss it with an
>> impartial checkuser or functionary and/or to have the link to the prior
>> account identified to Arbcom has been there for a long time, and would have
>> been a better step.
>>
>> I am not a big believer in punishing people for errors in judgment made
>> long ago, and which are not reflected in their current behaviours or
>> practices; therefore, I would be quite concerned about a public
>> discussion/RFAR about this situation. You know as well as I do how
>> bloodthirsty many can be. I am more inclined to press for resignation of
>> adminship with an understanding that the admin will not go to a 'crat for
>> reinstatement in the future, but instead would return to RFA, and would own
>> up to a past account, recognising that he'd probably take a significant hit
>> for it. Would you find that a reasonable middle ground?
>>
>> I'd like to ask your permission to share our exchange of emails (sans
>> email address if you prefer) with other arbitrators. I'll look forward to
>> hearing back from you.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Risker/Anne
>>
>>
>>
>> On 14 June 2010 19:35, Floquenbeam <floquenbeam at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Risker,
>>>
>>> I need the advice of a Checkuser.
>>>
>>> *In 2008, an account was discovered using a sockpuppet to make consensus
>>> stronger than it appeared in deletion debates. It was confirmed by a
>>> checkuser.
>>> *He claimed it was a roommate. Having read the old RFCU, and their
>>> contributions, that is pretty obviously not true, but some of his friends
>>> wouldn't believe it, and he was a pretty productive user, and people felt
>>> bad because it tanked his RFA, so he was never blocked.
>>> *He quit anyway. That same day he created a new account.
>>> *Assume for the moment I can prove this to your satisfaction (I will go
>>> to the trouble of doing so, but only if I get an affirmative answer to this
>>> hypothetical)
>>> *This user is now an admin. During his RFA, also in 2008 (only five
>>> months after socking), he said point blank that he had not used any previous
>>> accounts on WP.
>>> *He was nominated by someone considered a big cheese around here. I
>>> don't know if the nominator knew about his previous account or not, though I
>>> have no reason to think he did.
>>> *An SPI was filed in 2009 linking the old and new accounts, but it was
>>> evidently created by an old opponent who also used sockpuppets, so no one
>>> took it seriously.
>>>
>>> So, we have an admin who abusively socked, and lied about it during RFA.
>>> But it was 2 years ago (well, one year since the SPI), and it appears
>>> they're a productive admin. Probably more of a benefit to the project than
>>> me. I'm torn between (a) considering it water under the bridge, and (b)
>>> being sufficiently upset by an admin lying at RFA (and hiding the fact that
>>> there was a previous account with a skeleton in their closet) to file a new
>>> SPI at this late date. Or, better, quietly ask them to resign their tools.
>>>
>>> My gut says expose the dishonest admin, but my head says people can
>>> change, and anyway this person evidently has friends in high places, so why
>>> draw their ire on me?
>>>
>>> So my questions to you are:
>>>
>>> *Assuming I can convince you with enough evidence of the truth of the
>>> facts above, would you consider this enough justification to run a checkuser
>>> to see if there is any current obvious socking in the last few months
>>> (however many months you can go back before it goes stale)?
>>> *Assuming the situation is as I describe, but that there is no evidence
>>> of recent sockpuppetry (or if you're unwilling to run the checkuser), what's
>>> your advice? Would you let this slide, or pursue it, if you were me? I'm
>>> sure I would not pursue it if they weren't an admin, but I'm still stupid
>>> enough to think admins should be held to a higher standard. On the other
>>> hand, I'm not really looking for a lot of drama.
>>> *Do you want to know the names of the accounts before answering, or would
>>> you feel it would put you in an awkward position if I decide not to pursue
>>> this? (headline: "Checkuser/ArbCom member knew about a sockpuppeting admin
>>> and didn't do anything about it")
>>>
>>> Any advice you can offer would be appreciated.
>>>
>>> -floq
>>>
>>> --
>>> This e-mail was sent by user "Floquenbeam" on the English Wikipedia to
>>> user "Risker". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia
>>> Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
-----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Tue Jun 15 02:34:07 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:34:07 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] complicated admin/socking question... looking for
advice.
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim7q9vrsRfQLzkyl1JUGCrXdAsq_p67xgyEYtSt@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1OOJBj-0001QQ-Qu@srv203.pmtpa.wmnet>
<AANLkTiklLn7lmNdW8sUjr5Msx-No1wck4kRLSJW9EYUY@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTim0YY3wpKG1cUqAp8hX3dRWfKYLz3KVpBbHILaq@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinXmFa0n2585_2j6ltiDTtfoN0xZdrtijK53c90@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTim7q9vrsRfQLzkyl1JUGCrXdAsq_p67xgyEYtSt@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTilsSSYjYcU5rAE4CsXkHmCqh2hwlbjkCZ2_KCh0@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks, Floquenbeam.

Risker/Anne

On 14 June 2010 22:31, Floquenbeam X <floquenbeam at gmail.com> wrote:

> Here's the info:
>
> Old account: [[User:Snocrates]]
> Sock: [[User:Zoporific]]
>
> RFA (which tanked due to sock allegation): [[Wikipedia:Requests for
> adminship/Snocrates]]
>
> SSP: [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Snocrates]]
> note that there was an "enemy" that brought up the sock accusations first;
> it appears they did a lot of socking too. If I thought the socking was only
> to escape this person, I wouldn't have said anything (been there). However,
> Snocrates and Zoporific voted together on several CFD's, and tag team edit
> warred to get an opponent blocked.
>
> new account: [[User:Good Olfactory]]
>
> RFA: [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Good Olfactory]]
> nominator: [[User:Wizardman]]
>
> SPI from a year ago: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Good
> Olfactory/Archive]]
> also filed by, apparently, this same enemy.
> there's a third account on this report, [[User:G77]]
> I think that's it.
>
> -floq
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Floquenbeam.
>>
>> At this point, if you'd be kind enough to shoot me the name of the
>> accounts, that will be a place to start, but please feel free to include
>> anything else that you think will be helpful.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Risker/Anne
-----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Tue Jun 15 02:38:46 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:38:46 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Copy of your message to Good Olfactory: Wikipedia
e-mail - Good Olfactory and prior accounts
In-Reply-To: <E1OOM1f-0001i5-45@srv166.pmtpa.wmnet>
References: <E1OOM1f-0001i5-45@srv166.pmtpa.wmnet>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinvj7gA6xRiXdEDsC4PWfjWCV6xJ60kOJGHMYsl@mail.gmail.com>

Forwarding my email to Good Olfactory

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com>
Date: 14 June 2010 22:37
Subject: Copy of your message to Good Olfactory: Wikipedia e-mail - Good
Olfactory and prior accounts
To: Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com>


Hi Good Olfactory -

This is a very difficult email to write, and I apologise in advance that it
will be painful for you to read. Please know, as you are reading this, that
you have a well-earned reputation as a solid and respected editor and
administrator within the project, and that the information and
recommendations that I am providing here take this into consideration.

I know there have been discussions in the past between various arbitrators
and yourself with respect to your connection to the Zoporific and Snocrates
accounts. To date, no definitive action has been taken for a variety of
reasons, including the acknowledged harassment by Jordan Smith.

At this point, however, I now have reason to believe that the link between
your current and prior accounts is becoming increasingly common knowledge
within the community, and that, if there is not some significant change in
your status, there is a significant chance that you will be the subject of a
public and direct request for the Arbitration Committee to desysop you.
Alternately, there may be a request publicly or privately directed at you
seeking your resignation, potentially with public revelation of any evidence
(including private information) that has been circulation within the
community.

I am not telling you this to threaten you or to scare you, but simply to lay
the cards on the table.

It is not the desire or the intention of the Arbitration Committee for you
to be publicly derided, or to feed Jordan Smith's obsession over you. Nor do
we want to drive you away from the project to which you have given so much
of your time and your knowledge. However, we believe that your continued
status as an administrator has become untenable, as more people have become
aware of the connections to prior accounts and, specifically, your denial of
them during your RFA.

At this point, what we would like to suggest is that you voluntarily resign
your adminship (perhaps with a "taking a wee break from the tools for a bit"
comment), and then continue as an editor. Should you wish to regain
adminship, it would not be appropriate to request the tools back from a
bureaucrat; instead, you should return to RFA, and you will need to disclose
that you had prior accounts before editing as Good Olfactory. (Should you
decide to do this, you may wish to make arrangements with one or more
arbitrators or functionaries who can verify that you are not socking, and
that there is no recent history of concern.)

I'm sending this via Wikipedia email so you have no doubt that it is really
coming from me, but I will be forwarding a copy to the Arbitration Committee
mailing list, and you can feel free to respond directly there <
arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org> . I will also forward any response you send to
me personally to that mailing list.

Once again, I am sorry to have to discuss this with you. I will look forward
to hearing from you.

Best,

Risker
For the Arbitration Committee

--
This e-mail was sent by user "Risker" on the English Wikipedia to user "Good
Olfactory". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation
cannot be held responsible for its contents.
----------
From s____thearbitrator at gmail.com Tue Jun 15 02:40:40 2010
From: s____thearbitrator at gmail.com
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 23:40:40 -0300
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Copy of your message to Good Olfactory:
Wikipedia e-mail - Good Olfactory and prior accounts
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinvj7gA6xRiXdEDsC4PWfjWCV6xJ60kOJGHMYsl@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1OOM1f-0001i5-45@srv166.pmtpa.wmnet>
<AANLkTinvj7gA6xRiXdEDsC4PWfjWCV6xJ60kOJGHMYsl@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikEYfeqzX4Kjk9FzRW5tMJPZeoE8QwuRoTiTwyv@mail.gmail.com>

Can someone provide or link to some background on this Jordan Smith
business? I don't remember hearing anything about it before.

Good e-mail, though, Anne.

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:38 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Forwarding my email to Good Olfactory
-----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Tue Jun 15 02:49:15 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:49:15 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Copy of your message to Good Olfactory:
Wikipedia e-mail - Good Olfactory and prior accounts
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikEYfeqzX4Kjk9FzRW5tMJPZeoE8QwuRoTiTwyv@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1OOM1f-0001i5-45@srv166.pmtpa.wmnet>
<AANLkTinvj7gA6xRiXdEDsC4PWfjWCV6xJ60kOJGHMYsl@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikEYfeqzX4Kjk9FzRW5tMJPZeoE8QwuRoTiTwyv@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim1GT4pO_GhTvhbjPGIcxJi1rpB2Ipom3ZEOQhE@mail.gmail.com>

Jordan Smith has harassed Good Olfactory in all of his incarnations,
including (going back far enough) when he edited under his real name,
S______.

This has been confirmed by Cary Bass at the WMF, who has been on the
receiving end of some of the abuse directed at GO.

There's some discussion of this in the arbcom-L thread started on Feb 27/10
by FT2 entitled "Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email". Frank
can probably give some further background.

Risker/Anne


On 14 June 2010 22:40, {redacted} <s____thearbitrator at gmail.com> wrote:

> Can someone provide or link to some background on this Jordan Smith
----------
From s____thearbitrator at gmail.com Tue Jun 15 02:50:25 2010
From: s____thearbitrator at gmail.com
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 23:50:25 -0300
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Copy of your message to Good Olfactory:
Wikipedia e-mail - Good Olfactory and prior accounts
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim1GT4pO_GhTvhbjPGIcxJi1rpB2Ipom3ZEOQhE@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1OOM1f-0001i5-45@srv166.pmtpa.wmnet>
<AANLkTinvj7gA6xRiXdEDsC4PWfjWCV6xJ60kOJGHMYsl@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikEYfeqzX4Kjk9FzRW5tMJPZeoE8QwuRoTiTwyv@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTim1GT4pO_GhTvhbjPGIcxJi1rpB2Ipom3ZEOQhE@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTilb3J5q7U1Au_8A_psZvh032ARELWzQL-zjD9Oo@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks - I'll check out the thread.

Am I supposed to know who Jordan Smith is, or is the relevant answer
just "the guy who harassed Good Olfactory"?

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Jordan Smith has harassed Good Olfactory in all of his incarnations,
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Tue Jun 15 02:55:30 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:55:30 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Copy of your message to Good Olfactory:
Wikipedia e-mail - Good Olfactory and prior accounts
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTilb3J5q7U1Au_8A_psZvh032ARELWzQL-zjD9Oo@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1OOM1f-0001i5-45@srv166.pmtpa.wmnet>
<AANLkTinvj7gA6xRiXdEDsC4PWfjWCV6xJ60kOJGHMYsl@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikEYfeqzX4Kjk9FzRW5tMJPZeoE8QwuRoTiTwyv@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTim1GT4pO_GhTvhbjPGIcxJi1rpB2Ipom3ZEOQhE@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTilb3J5q7U1Au_8A_psZvh032ARELWzQL-zjD9Oo@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikIoLDO40kGZSgqaN8aSnQ_qaleqwpaWvhcYs3W@mail.gmail.com>

Ooops sorry! He is the arsonist who is not formally named in the section
"Recent events" near the bottom of this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Lot

This involves an offshoot of the Mormon faith, and Good Olfactory is a noted
non-Mormon scholar in the field.

R

On 14 June 2010 22:50, {redacted} <s____thearbitrator at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks - I'll check out the thread.
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Tue Jun 15 15:50:08 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:50:08 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Copy of your message to Good Olfactory:
Wikipedia e-mail - Good Olfactory and prior accounts
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTilb3J5q7U1Au_8A_psZvh032ARELWzQL-zjD9Oo@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1OOM1f-0001i5-45@srv166.pmtpa.wmnet>
<AANLkTinvj7gA6xRiXdEDsC4PWfjWCV6xJ60kOJGHMYsl@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikEYfeqzX4Kjk9FzRW5tMJPZeoE8QwuRoTiTwyv@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTim1GT4pO_GhTvhbjPGIcxJi1rpB2Ipom3ZEOQhE@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTilb3J5q7U1Au_8A_psZvh032ARELWzQL-zjD9Oo@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTik222t2olXIMm2VTu6Udd9Vh57jZHoT2HV0wGuO@mail.gmail.com>

Jordan Smith cropped up on the Temple Lot article back when Good Olfactory
was Snocrates<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Temple_Lot#Church_burning_incident>.
At the time, the article mentioned that Jordan Smith vandalized the church
owned by the so-called Temple Lot church. This Latter Day Saint faith owns
the land in Jackson County, MO where Joseph Smith prophesied that a great
temple would be built, which would receive Jesus Christ in the second
coming. It's therefore a significant plot of land for all Latter Day Saint
faiths, and the arson of the church on that land is also covered by sources
in Mormonism.

Jordan Smith ignited that fire and was convicted and jailed for arson.
Through his postings, it's apparent that he once had some association with
the Temple Lot group, but is now mainline LDS. He believes that the Temple
Lot church is anti-Mormon and racist, and that the Kansas City Star is also
anti-Mormon. He fashions the New Years Day fire as part of a 60's-style
storm-the-admin-building political protest, and says that the sources
covering it as an arson are wrong and anti-Mormon.

In accord with BLP principles, I suggested removing his name from the
article, which was done (although Jordan Smith is a very common name). His
socks still crop up from time to time, because his beef really isn't about
the name, but the fact that we don't describe it as a peaceful political
protest that was skewed by the Kansas City Star and the opportunistic Temple
Lot church, which razed the supposedly undamaged church for the insurance
money.

Snocrates/Good Olfactory and I both edited the relevant articles, and he
thinks we are both anti-Mormon. He's called the Foundation many times about
our purported cyber-stalking (although he focuses much more on
Snocrates/Good Olfactory who was much more involved than me).

Here's the summary of the Good Olfactory issue I wrote in February:

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...p/Snocrates(his
prior account's RFA, which died when his sock puppetry emerged).

Evidence linking all of these accounts is strong, IMO, but all the earlier
socks were abandoned when he started Good Olfactory on February 2008.

S_____ was mostly abandoned on September 29,
2007 (just 9 edits after that date until November, mostly wrapping up). On
September 30, Snocrates
emerged.<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&contribs=user&target=Snocrates>
Zaporific edited simultaneous to Snocrates for two weeks in February
2008.<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Zoporific>
This was confirmed by
CU<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Snocrates>,
with some sock abuse issues, obviously killing his RFA. Two days
later, on February
16, 2008, Good Olfactory started
up<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Good+Olfactory>,
as prolific as ever.

The Jordan Smith stuff started in December
2007<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Temple_Lot#Church_burning_incident>,
so I would not be surprised that he would not like to claim an account under
his real name (S_____). That said, he never claimed any of the accounts
when asked at RFA<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Good_Olfactory>in
July 2008 (nominated by Wizardman, BTW):

*Optional Question from
NuclearWarfare<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NuclearWarfare>
*
*5.* May we please have the account names of your former accounts? *A.* I've
had no former accounts on WP; the previous wiki experience referred to was
on non-WP wikis. Good
Ol?factory<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Good_Olfactory>
(talk) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Good_Olfactory> 14:30, 21
July 2008 (UTC)
If there are more recent issues, perhaps FT2 could summarize those.

NB, that the S_____ account was associated with the <redacted> as was (I believe) our own {redacted}.

Frank
-----------
From s____thearbitrator at gmail.com Tue Jun 15 22:12:36 2010
From: s____thearbitrator at gmail.com
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:12:36 -0300
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Copy of your message to Good Olfactory:
Wikipedia e-mail - Good Olfactory and prior accounts
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik222t2olXIMm2VTu6Udd9Vh57jZHoT2HV0wGuO@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1OOM1f-0001i5-45@srv166.pmtpa.wmnet>
<AANLkTinvj7gA6xRiXdEDsC4PWfjWCV6xJ60kOJGHMYsl@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikEYfeqzX4Kjk9FzRW5tMJPZeoE8QwuRoTiTwyv@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTim1GT4pO_GhTvhbjPGIcxJi1rpB2Ipom3ZEOQhE@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTilb3J5q7U1Au_8A_psZvh032ARELWzQL-zjD9Oo@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTik222t2olXIMm2VTu6Udd9Vh57jZHoT2HV0wGuO@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim2rc8MWbXe8NyWMMvTfam10U8M39eu6rpacakV@mail.gmail.com>

Oh, right - this is the case that got me checkusered; it's coming back
to me now. Yeah, I was at the U of A at the time some of this was
going on, but FT2 (who conducted the CU) will vouch that I'm
uninvolved in all of this, despite my having once made an incidental
edit to [[{redacted, WP BLP subject}]], who is, as I understand it,
[[User:S_____]].

Tangled web, etc., etc...

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Cool Hand Luke
<User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com> wrote:
> Jordan Smith cropped up on the Temple Lot article back when Good Olfactory
------------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Wed Jun 16 18:55:36 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 19:55:36 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: complicated admin/socking question... looking
for advice. - FYI
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTil7UyIIxOmmbPCUPhrb50J34kPGrJW-E5BslBfJ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTil7UyIIxOmmbPCUPhrb50J34kPGrJW-E5BslBfJ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTiltYIzjQz1xzEVr09GtJgYaa8aaE5rFHBUMmlJQ@mail.gmail.com>

Ah, that explains why you sent that e-mail to Good Olfactory - I had
been mystified by that! :-) Good e-mail by the way, but have you
checked to see if he is editing, has responded, or has quietly
vanished into the night? If the latter, the admin bit will need
removing at some point.

Carcharoth

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:15 AM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Including arbcom-L in the loop here.
>
> There is little doubt that Floquenbeam is talking about Good Olfactory here.
-----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Thu Jun 17 07:29:28 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 03:29:28 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail - Good Olfactory and prior accounts
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTilczB8lieXlKk3vkJfPr7kUR6kyowkA9FHcMntz@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1OOM1f-0001i1-2j@srv166.pmtpa.wmnet>
<AANLkTins3Pwu7ZJuuIqZpK6UK1kMgr0GTV1WTslgUiUl@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTilczB8lieXlKk3vkJfPr7kUR6kyowkA9FHcMntz@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinTMQsjnsGO1Sx70hSxyVDNy_VlK4u_4zQCHFBL@mail.gmail.com>

Forwarded from Good Olfactory.

The killer evidence against him is the shared emails that were discovered
during WMF board elections, and I am fairly certain we do not have
permission to reveal that information.

Thoughts on the next response?

Risker/Anne

Forwarded conversation
Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail - Good Olfactory and prior accounts
------------------------

From: *Good Ol'factory* <goodolfactory at gmail.com>
Date: 16 June 2010 06:26
To: Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com>


I'm not totally clear if you were privy to the other conversations I had
with other AC members via email. I assume you know the basics of them.

If you do, you'll know what I told them regarding my connection to the
Snocrates account. I did not control the Snocrates account. I've been
through this all before with the other members of the AC, and I'm just not
clear on why I'm asked to step down when I know I've not done anything
wrong. This is the same thing I was asked to do a few months ago. My
position has not changed, and I'm just not sure why I need to take a bullet
like this when it would feel like admitting something that I know is not
true. Why would I need to admit my connection to other accounts upon
re-application for adminship if making such an admission would be a lie?

You say that "I now have reason to believe that the link between your
current and prior accounts is becoming increasingly common knowledge within
the community". I assume this means they (whoever it is) think I am the same
person who was Snocrates. But this "increasingly common knowledge" is (if
that's what they think) not correct.

Do you believe me? Or does it matter??is this just a case where perception
is reality? If enough people believe it is true, it is true for WP purposes?

GO
(Mike---)


From: *Good Ol'factory* <goodolfactory at gmail.com>
Date: 16 June 2010 18:37
To: Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com>


Just an update on my views as I reflect on this??

I have started to see what you meant when you suggested that the view that
"the link between your current and prior accounts is becoming increasingly
common knowledge within the community". On my talk page User:YellowMonkey
has recently posted a comment (kind of out of the blue) that "Everyone knows
policies are de factooptional. You are living proof; all the arbs and CUs
know you are a banned user":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Good_Olfactory#Policy

However, I just want to again make it clear that I dispute the assumption in
the comments you have made to me that I have in fact had prior accounts (you
referred to "the link between your current and prior accounts", which
assumes that I have prior accounts). I have never had another Wikipedia
account and I have never been banned from Wikipedia. If this is the
information that is being spread about me by someone, it is being done
falsely, and I assume maliciously.

If you assume (at least for purposes of this paragraph) that I am telling
the truth, then you can understand why I find the suggestion that I step
down as an administrator to be manifestly unjust. I don't value an adminship
so much that I couldn't give it up, but by doing so I would feel like I was
giving credence to the information that has been spread about me, and I find
it very hard to impliedly admit to this when it is false.

I think this was clear from my previous response to you, but I wanted to
make sure there was not a misunderstanding.

User:Good Olfactory
(Mike---)
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Thu Jun 17 07:53:32 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 08:53:32 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail - Good Olfactory and prior
accounts
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinTMQsjnsGO1Sx70hSxyVDNy_VlK4u_4zQCHFBL@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1OOM1f-0001i1-2j@srv166.pmtpa.wmnet>
<AANLkTins3Pwu7ZJuuIqZpK6UK1kMgr0GTV1WTslgUiUl@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTilczB8lieXlKk3vkJfPr7kUR6kyowkA9FHcMntz@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinTMQsjnsGO1Sx70hSxyVDNy_VlK4u_4zQCHFBL@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikK27-DwjKPGuOK6kkERrfdlXYaPxVMBk-FjPaT@mail.gmail.com>

NB. There are *two* responses from Good Olfactory to read in what
Risker forwarded. One at the start, one at the end. In the second
e-mail he points to YellowMonkey pointing out stuff on his talk page
(which I'm not entirely happy with YM for, but hey).

As to what to do - simple, really. If he wants to make his case let
him. It is his choice and he has made it. He had the option to go
silently, so now we just desysop him as normal, explaining where we
can what the reasoning for our decision is. It probably needs to go
public on a page somewhere at this point. I would suggest the Motions
page (the little-used page that is the fourth of the main arbitration
pages, the one used for the tricky stuff that has nowhere else to go).

The tricky thing is, as Risker says, whether and how to mention or use
the "shared emails that were discovered during WMF board elections".
In a real court, if this was inadmissable evidence, the jury would be
directed to ignore it and the judge might declare a mistrial and a new
trial and new jury might be needed (but this isn't a real court and I
watch too many legal dramas).

Carcharoth

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Forwarded from Good Olfactory.
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Thu Jun 17 09:47:34 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:47:34 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail - Good Olfactory and prior
accounts
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikK27-DwjKPGuOK6kkERrfdlXYaPxVMBk-FjPaT@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1OOM1f-0001i1-2j@srv166.pmtpa.wmnet>
<AANLkTins3Pwu7ZJuuIqZpK6UK1kMgr0GTV1WTslgUiUl@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTilczB8lieXlKk3vkJfPr7kUR6kyowkA9FHcMntz@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinTMQsjnsGO1Sx70hSxyVDNy_VlK4u_4zQCHFBL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikK27-DwjKPGuOK6kkERrfdlXYaPxVMBk-FjPaT@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTilWjFeXjVk1-RVV3AuyTnEWC-zNsbPn2awhiX2X@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
> NB. There are *two* responses from Good Olfactory to read in what
> Risker forwarded. One at the start, one at the end. In the second
> e-mail he points to YellowMonkey pointing out stuff on his talk page
> (which I'm not entirely happy with YM for, but hey).

In particular, YellowMonkey seems to be clearly attacking Good
Olfactory because there is some dispute between WP:CRIC and the CfD
regulars (of which Good Olfactory is one):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...ricket_captains

It's not the first time YellowMonkey has pulled stunts like this either.

Carcharoth
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Wed 6th July 2011, 5:48am
Post #3


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



From marc at uberbox.org Thu Jun 17 10:30:51 2010
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 06:30:51 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail - Good Olfactory and
prior accounts
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTilWjFeXjVk1-RVV3AuyTnEWC-zNsbPn2awhiX2X@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1OOM1f-0001i1-2j@srv166.pmtpa.wmnet> <AANLkTins3Pwu7ZJuuIqZpK6UK1kMgr0GTV1WTslgUiUl@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTilczB8lieXlKk3vkJfPr7kUR6kyowkA9FHcMntz@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinTMQsjnsGO1Sx70hSxyVDNy_VlK4u_4zQCHFBL@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikK27-DwjKPGuOK6kkERrfdlXYaPxVMBk-FjPaT@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTilWjFeXjVk1-RVV3AuyTnEWC-zNsbPn2awhiX2X@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4C19F95B.8060107@uberbox.org>

On 17/06/2010 5:47 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
>
> It's not the first time YellowMonkey has pulled stunts like this either.
>

His attack is all the more ironic in that Bainer has, in the past, lied
to protect socking friends.

As for the primary matter, I don't think we should sit on such a damning
piece of evidence while GO makes his case publicly. We need to tell him
we know, and that this is part of the reason why we are demanding he
steps down. If it comes to a motion, we need to state that we have this
evidence (without disclosing the details).

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Thu Jun 17 10:45:44 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:45:44 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail - Good Olfactory and prior
accounts
In-Reply-To: <4C19F95B.8060107@uberbox.org>
References: <E1OOM1f-0001i1-2j@srv166.pmtpa.wmnet>
<AANLkTins3Pwu7ZJuuIqZpK6UK1kMgr0GTV1WTslgUiUl@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTilczB8lieXlKk3vkJfPr7kUR6kyowkA9FHcMntz@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinTMQsjnsGO1Sx70hSxyVDNy_VlK4u_4zQCHFBL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikK27-DwjKPGuOK6kkERrfdlXYaPxVMBk-FjPaT@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTilWjFeXjVk1-RVV3AuyTnEWC-zNsbPn2awhiX2X@mail.gmail.com>
<4C19F95B.8060107@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikobpSmjoXskkxP-NlSKOC9DiVbdn9ZcFtWndwi@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:
> On 17/06/2010 5:47 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
>>
>> It's not the first time YellowMonkey has pulled stunts like this either.
>
> His attack is all the more ironic in that Bainer has, in the past, lied
> to protect socking friends.

Bainer?

> As for the primary matter, I don't think we should sit on such a damning
> piece of evidence while GO makes his case publicly. ?We need to tell him
> we know, and that this is part of the reason why we are demanding he
> steps down. ?If it comes to a motion, we need to state that we have this
> evidence (without disclosing the details).

Are there any legal implications there. Apart from that, I also want
us to try and have some strategy to deal with what may happen if this
Jordan Smith gets wind of this and turns up on the public page where
this gets thrashed out. I also want to be absolutely clear what
private stuff we know (such as his real-life identity) that needs to
be kept out of the public arena, and also to have some idea what to do
if FT2 turns up and makes a big stink or starts pontificating.

In other words, let him have a public defence, but still try and keep
things quiet if they start to turn nasty. We need to make crystal
clear that this is going public because *he* wants it, not us. And
someone needs to tell him that a public motion on this is the next
step, though before that would be telling him what this extra evidence
is we have. If anyone can summarise that succinctly.

Carcharoth
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Thu Jun 17 11:49:08 2010
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:49:08 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail - Good Olfactory and prior
accounts
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikobpSmjoXskkxP-NlSKOC9DiVbdn9ZcFtWndwi@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1OOM1f-0001i1-2j@srv166.pmtpa.wmnet>
<AANLkTins3Pwu7ZJuuIqZpK6UK1kMgr0GTV1WTslgUiUl@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTilczB8lieXlKk3vkJfPr7kUR6kyowkA9FHcMntz@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinTMQsjnsGO1Sx70hSxyVDNy_VlK4u_4zQCHFBL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikK27-DwjKPGuOK6kkERrfdlXYaPxVMBk-FjPaT@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTilWjFeXjVk1-RVV3AuyTnEWC-zNsbPn2awhiX2X@mail.gmail.com>
<4C19F95B.8060107@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTikobpSmjoXskkxP-NlSKOC9DiVbdn9ZcFtWndwi@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinzqoZ-TXYjTMwVSDWkLOMB7E0Vhddwvc--Qm92@mail.gmail.com>

Could someone please provide me a link to the evidence again. I need to
take another look at it, as frankly, I've forgotten what it was and whether
I was convinced by it.

Newyorkbrad

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 6:45 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org>
> wrote:
> > On 17/06/2010 5:47 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
> >>
> >> It's not the first time YellowMonkey has pulled stunts like this either.
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Thu Jun 17 12:03:05 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:03:05 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail - Good Olfactory and prior
accounts
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinzqoZ-TXYjTMwVSDWkLOMB7E0Vhddwvc--Qm92@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1OOM1f-0001i1-2j@srv166.pmtpa.wmnet>
<AANLkTins3Pwu7ZJuuIqZpK6UK1kMgr0GTV1WTslgUiUl@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTilczB8lieXlKk3vkJfPr7kUR6kyowkA9FHcMntz@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinTMQsjnsGO1Sx70hSxyVDNy_VlK4u_4zQCHFBL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikK27-DwjKPGuOK6kkERrfdlXYaPxVMBk-FjPaT@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTilWjFeXjVk1-RVV3AuyTnEWC-zNsbPn2awhiX2X@mail.gmail.com>
<4C19F95B.8060107@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTikobpSmjoXskkxP-NlSKOC9DiVbdn9ZcFtWndwi@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinzqoZ-TXYjTMwVSDWkLOMB7E0Vhddwvc--Qm92@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinUBjVeYxBfPJqqvTu0TR6PwlEEFStm1lnhRmRV@mail.gmail.com>

It was incomplete when I last looked a few months ago, but there is
this page on the arbwiki:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbc...:Good_Olfactory

If it is still incomplete, it needs to be updated before we go any
further on this. With a timeline at least on what we have done with
regards to this and who has been involved when and when various
e-mails were sent. From memory, both Vassyana and Wizardman wrote to
Good Olfactory, and Risker wrote recently. I think others may have
written as well, but can't remember.

Carcharoth
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Wed Jul 7 05:32:40 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 01:32:40 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Problem ahead with admin socking around the pedo
kerrufle?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikNoQJQk3fPw3LkcydyoksEvR8UPzYSWS2GlYc_@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4C333701.4000109@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTilYWyLR6tRxtRpUp5-IpcBcNMtwjKaE17XgU682@mail.gmail.com>
<4C333B59.3010200@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTil50WpAyKFw8F2kWaTKYb0AhL-94nuPJp_yexOA@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinhuIg61GpnDpM-DRBlg0wtTXaa60v-GmQ4Bs5p@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimHxPFBpgmDKrMyG32wcapUpGzwbuG8d3RkaSzQ@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikHK55fwrO08bMlYiLyk_NHvhXM0pzf7321GIEY@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTilvrk88qNrVFXIe-ynayd7I0xUW72yEaMCu3sEt@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimu5lRBtMKUpN-MXeAWwkp-jf1lpeiDx2KgsI06@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikHXTuCOJZhBzMXS2xyiG20LWKful0N6KSkmAPG@mail.gmail.com>
<4C33794F.5020308@uberbox.org>
<022401cb1d45$957b3620$c071a260$@net>
<AANLkTikci0kXMXPUGS6X8mb3LjaIHi9ldTFbAGQhju0z@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikO-KK5jtMitdXdTMpgr-twu2vY3fKjUwjpfcCe@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikmrEqXOkkDdqqflEbSkkIz4ZcGPXzxT3znbcAP@mail.gmail.com>
<02b101cb1d66$cec24920$6c46db60$@net>
<AANLkTikzYZ6oNzV9xuDD0RCD4G_c0Sl23S0NomYa4rvX@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikp7LQVnbrhtyPDPROKqSUQK18BLdY2ZKPzGCrz@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikjGpah2z_b7pMJM4qn-u1Qs1a-EeGzQD1dDCUP@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTik0BPcH9WA4vn46bqd8-aAv0b_ylS_uJ0KV424Y@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikNoQJQk3fPw3LkcydyoksEvR8UPzYSWS2GlYc_@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTilE-PVeBfN41PdqIwQtowpHMKWzHuLqMfQTJqUH@mail.gmail.com>

Well, given the leakiness of Functionaries-L (comparatively speaking), I
don't think it's a particularly good place for the discussion of possible
admin socking.

That does prod my memory, and we need to finish our work on Good Olfactory.


Risker/Anne

On 7 July 2010 01:26, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:

> Coren did send an e-mail (privately), but if necessary a follow-up can
> be sent by him apologising for incorrectly making a link in that
> e-mail (if Coren agrees with that assessment after reading these
> e-mails) and stating (correctly) that the admin got confused with
> someone else socking as an IP on the same range (checkusers are human
> after all). After that, it goes to AUSC if the admin wants to make a
> complaint. I don't think anyone did anything wrong here, as something
> did need to be done and the real cause of all this appears to be
> Benjiboi socking (if I've read this correctly).
>
> Someone also needs to check if the admin account is editing and not
> responding to the e-mail. Many people don't use their e-mail accounts
> actively in the way we do, and sometimes if you are waiting for a
> response to an e-mail, a prod on the user page is needed. But that is
> up to Coren as he sent the e-mail as a private note.
>
> I do wonder if this had been discussed on functionaries, rather than
> here, whether the connection with Benjiboi would have been picked up
> faster?
>
> Carcharoth
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Wed Jul 7 05:54:39 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 06:54:39 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Problem ahead with admin socking around the pedo
kerrufle?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTilE-PVeBfN41PdqIwQtowpHMKWzHuLqMfQTJqUH@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4C333701.4000109@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTilYWyLR6tRxtRpUp5-IpcBcNMtwjKaE17XgU682@mail.gmail.com>
<4C333B59.3010200@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTil50WpAyKFw8F2kWaTKYb0AhL-94nuPJp_yexOA@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinhuIg61GpnDpM-DRBlg0wtTXaa60v-GmQ4Bs5p@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimHxPFBpgmDKrMyG32wcapUpGzwbuG8d3RkaSzQ@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikHK55fwrO08bMlYiLyk_NHvhXM0pzf7321GIEY@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTilvrk88qNrVFXIe-ynayd7I0xUW72yEaMCu3sEt@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimu5lRBtMKUpN-MXeAWwkp-jf1lpeiDx2KgsI06@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikHXTuCOJZhBzMXS2xyiG20LWKful0N6KSkmAPG@mail.gmail.com>
<4C33794F.5020308@uberbox.org>
<022401cb1d45$957b3620$c071a260$@net>
<AANLkTikci0kXMXPUGS6X8mb3LjaIHi9ldTFbAGQhju0z@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikO-KK5jtMitdXdTMpgr-twu2vY3fKjUwjpfcCe@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikmrEqXOkkDdqqflEbSkkIz4ZcGPXzxT3znbcAP@mail.gmail.com>
<02b101cb1d66$cec24920$6c46db60$@net>
<AANLkTikzYZ6oNzV9xuDD0RCD4G_c0Sl23S0NomYa4rvX@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikp7LQVnbrhtyPDPROKqSUQK18BLdY2ZKPzGCrz@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikjGpah2z_b7pMJM4qn-u1Qs1a-EeGzQD1dDCUP@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTik0BPcH9WA4vn46bqd8-aAv0b_ylS_uJ0KV424Y@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikNoQJQk3fPw3LkcydyoksEvR8UPzYSWS2GlYc_@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTilE-PVeBfN41PdqIwQtowpHMKWzHuLqMfQTJqUH@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimOiPzGIjpyu_0E699CeRD3EmHWlqu382lQgmoJ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:32 AM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, given the leakiness of Functionaries-L (comparatively speaking), I
> don't think it's a particularly good place for the discussion of possible
> admin socking.

In this case, if Coren had waited until Frank (CHL) turned up, then
the IP link with Benjiboi would have become clear (to be fair, several
arbs missed this and I presume CU doesn't pick it up because . But it
seems Alison also knew about this and would have popped up and said
something if she had been asked.

[PS. I thought Benjiboi was socking round a block, but I see he was
logged out and editing the talk page and hasn't edited from his main
account in over three months, presumably why it didn't show up on
checkuser.. Do we let that slide merely because he is not an admin? He
seems to be fighting with Delicious carbuncle, who recognised him
quite easily.]

Overall, I think the usefulness of drawing on the collective knowledge
of checkuser outweighs the leakiness here (when was the last time
something was leaked?). And if not, then part of the blame lies with
us for not damn well getting on with setting up this separate list for
checkusers to discuss checks. Yes, I know the transfer to OTRS for
oversight happened first and went well, though I am presuming that
because I haven't heard the sounds of the oversight system collapsing
under the strain, but if we had a list of things that were a top
priority, instead of reacting to things, we would have done this ages
ago.

> That does prod my memory, and we need to finish our work on Good Olfactory.

Did anyone update the arbwiki page? I know several arbitrators won't
vote on any desysopping motion until that is done, because the e-mails
are all over the place, spread over several months, and we *must* have
our notes in order if Good Olfactory takes any case or appeal public.

Carcharoth
----------


No really, they just dropped it at this point. yecch.gif Bonus points if you caught Brad advocating for doing nothing in yet another instance. Have you ever seen a chap work so hard at nothing?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
-DS-
post Wed 6th July 2011, 9:37am
Post #4


Ethernaut
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun 23rd Jan 2011, 3:44pm
Member No.: 39,458



What an absolute joke.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
No one of consequence
post Wed 6th July 2011, 11:08am
Post #5


I want to stare at the seaside and do nothing at all
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 635
Joined: Fri 23rd Feb 2007, 2:34am
Member No.: 1,010

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(-DS- @ Wed 6th July 2011, 9:37am) *

What an absolute joke.

Yet another admin diddling around that I investigated that was never dealt with. Oh well.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Theanima
post Wed 6th July 2011, 11:40am
Post #6


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu 1st Apr 2010, 1:46pm
Member No.: 18,566



Heh, he's still editing to this day.

It's not like he's one of the worse ones though, at least.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shalom
post Wed 6th July 2011, 12:44pm
Post #7


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 879
Joined: Tue 1st Apr 2008, 4:00pm
Member No.: 5,566



QUOTE(Theanima @ Wed 6th July 2011, 7:40am) *

Heh, he's still editing to this day.

It's not like he's one of the worse ones though, at least.

I refuse to edit Wikipedia, but if I were editing under my 2007-2008 rules of engagement, I would take this to ANI and get the guy desysopped forthwith. There's no statute of limitations. If he had already been desysopped, he wouldn't be getting his tools back anytime soon. To be clear, I checked special:listadmins and he's there, and I checked his RFA and he did answer a question by NuclearWarfare to say that he had no prior accounts.

As I complained bitterly two years ago, there is no policy against lying on Wikipedia - but there should be, and this liar should lose his adminship.

I strongly encourage anyone active on Wikipedia to bring this matter to the community's attention with the purpose of desysopping Good Olfactory.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
melloden
post Wed 6th July 2011, 6:35pm
Post #8


.
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue 30th Nov 2010, 4:43pm
Member No.: 34,482



But it's not like he's still doing any harm right now--I'm sure GO has wised up after the checkusering. Why not let the old chap muddle about in his category discussions and whatnot?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shalom
post Wed 6th July 2011, 8:56pm
Post #9


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 879
Joined: Tue 1st Apr 2008, 4:00pm
Member No.: 5,566



QUOTE(melloden @ Wed 6th July 2011, 2:35pm) *

But it's not like he's still doing any harm right now--I'm sure GO has wised up after the checkusering. Why not let the old chap muddle about in his category discussions and whatnot?

Whether "he's still doing any harm right now" or not is completely irrelevant. If he were no longer an admin, and no longer editing, I would say the question is moot. Since he still is an admin, and still is editing, the issue is not moot. Many other users who got caught doing exactly the same sockpuppeting behavior either were desysopped, or should have been desysopped. Either Wikipedia has honesty standards, or it has none. If it has honesty standards, Good Ol'factory should be desysopped -- or at minimum, the question should be aired on Wikipedia's public processes. If Wikipedia has no honesty standards, then ArbCom should resysop Oldwindybear, JoshuaZ, and many others and say "sorry, actually, doing what you did was completely okay and within policy."
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Wed 6th July 2011, 10:39pm
Post #10


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE
> As I said, that shows what too much openness would do. If the Old Guard
> thought there was a pitchforks and torches lynch mob then, if those posts on
> ArbCom-L had been made public, it would have been 15x worse.



User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shalom
post Thu 7th July 2011, 3:26am
Post #11


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 879
Joined: Tue 1st Apr 2008, 4:00pm
Member No.: 5,566



Someone please read my previous post and go on Wikipedia to file an ANI report or RFC against GoodOlfactory.

Also, Carcharoth wrote a beautiful joke about FT2 above. I call this a "Candor Win":

QUOTE

I also want to be absolutely clear what private stuff we know (such as his real-life identity) that needs to be kept out of the public arena, and also to have some idea what to do if FT2 turns up and makes a big stink or starts pontificating.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
melloden
post Thu 7th July 2011, 3:31am
Post #12


.
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue 30th Nov 2010, 4:43pm
Member No.: 34,482



QUOTE(Shalom @ Wed 6th July 2011, 8:56pm) *

QUOTE(melloden @ Wed 6th July 2011, 2:35pm) *

But it's not like he's still doing any harm right now--I'm sure GO has wised up after the checkusering. Why not let the old chap muddle about in his category discussions and whatnot?

Whether "he's still doing any harm right now" or not is completely irrelevant. If he were no longer an admin, and no longer editing, I would say the question is moot. Since he still is an admin, and still is editing, the issue is not moot. Many other users who got caught doing exactly the same sockpuppeting behavior either were desysopped, or should have been desysopped. Either Wikipedia has honesty standards, or it has none. If it has honesty standards, Good Ol'factory should be desysopped -- or at minimum, the question should be aired on Wikipedia's public processes. If Wikipedia has no honesty standards, then ArbCom should resysop Oldwindybear, JoshuaZ, and many others and say "sorry, actually, doing what you did was completely okay and within policy."


No, Wikipedia doesn't care about honesty standards. Because the only standards it has are double standards.

Also, I predict that any such RfC or arbitration request at this point will fail, miserably. The ArbCom is loath to do anything now that its secret business has been leaked. The last thing they want to do now is desysop another admin purely because they people are pressuring them on these newly public "revelations".
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Theanima
post Thu 7th July 2011, 5:35pm
Post #13


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu 1st Apr 2010, 1:46pm
Member No.: 18,566



QUOTE(Shalom @ Thu 7th July 2011, 4:26am) *

Someone please read my previous post and go on Wikipedia to file an ANI report or RFC against GoodOlfactory.


The reason no one will is because there is no point. Yes, he committed wikisins, but this was ages ago. To do anything now would be punitive. TBH I'd never heard of him until this thread. There are surely better people to go after than this guy.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th 5 17, 6:35pm
 
     
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=682d8e295e072bb293a8f6b70b26a83b&showtopic=34276&pid=279479&st=0
wikipediareview.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-22
219095
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:JTV7PV46GVW6K46NXVGQBYQYWCYLCXSN
<urn:uuid:991c4546-c3a3-4681-9a89-0be2a179d6ba>
2017-05-28T18:35:38Z
192.254.236.99
application/xhtml+xml
sha1:7IHJGQSR5G5J63JTQ4W7XQG3T6LWXRCP
<urn:uuid:4dfeb771-ae50-41e7-8070-cc85e13777c8>
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=682d8e295e072bb293a8f6b70b26a83b&showtopic=34276&pid=279479&st=0
length
response
<urn:uuid:830a8273-395d-4888-b958-b4660bdf3095>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-185-224-210.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-22
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for May 2017
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf