User talk:ElinorD

Thank you for uploading

These issues are rather thick and sensitive, but recently you've been asking people to discuss them. So before forming an opinion may I raise a few questions and concerns? Posting here so as not to divert any other thread. Foremost, your very difficult position has my utmost respect.

Regarding the SlimVirgin-Lar case and SlimVirgin's conduct there, your statement says the Committee found her quick to make unwarranted accusations, and yet again reminded to use proper process. I ran a search for that phrase and couldn't find it anywhere on the page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar. The search failed at the word unwarranted. Nor does there appear to be any synonymous phrase. The findings that mention her specify shortcomings in her manner of raising the complaint, but remain silent on the merits (or lack thereof) of the complaint itself. You are in a far better position than I am to understand how much merit was there. Yet the way she raised the matter really doesn't appear to have furthered her best interests or yours: the public mailing list she chose was unequipped to resolve those sensitive issues and when another venue opened she was unprepared to back up the assertions. Or at least, much more tardy than customary. That is what, to my eye, the decision appears to be saying. Have I misread? Durova^Charge! 05:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, it's hard to explain what happened, in part because there are certain things we're apparently not allowed to say (and if we try to, the posts are deleted), and in part because the experience was somewhat Alice in Wonderland-esque and therefore not easy to describe.

In brief, Elinor and I complained to various people about a checkuser that we felt was a misuse of the tool. We were told other checkusers weren't interested in pursuing it; that the Ombudsmen weren't allowed to pursue it because they're only allowed to examine privacy policy violations; and that, although we could technically go to ArbCom, they were the same people who were saying, wearing their other hats, that they didn't care about it, so there was little point. When someone else did take it to ArbCom, they decided not only to hear the case in private, but not to allow any of the parties to see the evidence either. I declined to provide evidence in an atmosphere of such extreme secrecy. The ArbCom responded that they had to hear it in secret to protect the people who were checkusered — at which point those people publicly waived their right to privacy, but of course it made no difference.

Later, when the ArbCom ruled that I had behaved inappropriately by mentioning it on the mailing list without first going trying other avenues, and when I argued that I had indeed tried other avenues — which included asking Anthere to look at allowing the Ombudsmen to examine alleged checkuser misuse, and several e-mails to and from Jimbo — I was told (by FT2) that we had only approached the Ombudsmen informally, not formally, and that therefore it didn't count. That the informal approaches resulted in the Ombudsmen saying there could not be a formal approach apparently mattered not. The upshot was that my failure to trigger dispute resolution also meant that I hadn't tried to. I was therefore told off in the ArbCom's final decision. When I tried to post a defence of myself, it was deleted and the page was protected.

That's just a small part of what happened, but it gives the flavor. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 07:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is an alternate view of these events, generally that despite lacking support for their suspicions and an inability to obtain such support, SV nevertheless went public with inflammatory accusations as if they did, including numerous highly inaccurate claims. I have just posted a list of some of these on FT2's talk page.[12] SV then continued to say that she was not given enough information to make a case, despite the accusations she continued to make. She then complained that she was not given enough time to present a case, but was given such time, and still did not provide evidence until a decision was proposed. Since then SV and ElinorD have sought to have the case in effect retried, while appealing to some principles of justice but ignoring others.

In all of this I think it may be pointed out that many of us have beliefs that perhaps we do not have enough evidence to publicly announce. Should everyone go ahead? I believe the consensus is no. If they went ahead without even acknowledging what was known and what was conjecture, then surely that is a bigger problem. I believe this is largely what the SV-Lar case was about. Mackan79 (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you write is not correct. Given that the correspondence was private, and that you had no access to it, how do you purport to know who was given enough time or not, who was given enough information or not, which claims were accurate and which not? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 08:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen your responses, in which I recall you saying that they eventually gave you more time, and at that point when prepared you again asked to see Lar's evidence so that you could write a response. I recall you saying that you were denied this request, and accordingly that you gave up on the case. I could look it up, but that is the basis for my comments above. As far as the claims that you made, I know some are false because they are about me, others because I was involved, or based on information that has now been shared. I wouldn't criticize you for that alone, but I can criticize you for making accusations even as you clearly knew that you did not have enough evidence to support them. I believe this is a point that Sam Blacketer also made.[13] Mackan79 (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't argue about this here, but I can assure you that I do have evidence for everything I've said, and that's why we all waived our privacy so that we could explain it all in public. But to no avail. Please don't criticize the parties who wanted transparency; if you have to criticize anyone, direct it to the ones who insisted you all be kept in the dark. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 09:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If so, I'm forced to rely on the arbitration committee to evaluate it. However, some of the claims were incorrect, particularly about me, but also that Lar had no basis whatsoever for checking Wikitumnus. I posted my basis for inquiring on the mailing list, which showed in the absence of something quite bizarre that Wikitumnus had removed a sock notice from Crum375's page while attempting to make it look like routine vandalism patrol, but in a way that could only have done by an involved user; this was one of a few issues with the account. Disregarding anything else, Crum375 had also just been blocked for behavior in an arbitration case quite peculiar for an administrator. A number of controversies have existed around this which could have justified a CU in looking into it. I'm personally reluctant to discuss all of it because I don't think anyone knows where a full public discussion would go, but as I said I do know that if you considered that you needed Lar's evidence in order to present your own, then that suggests the evidence in your possession did not in your view support an arbitration case. And I believe that supports, and indeed calls for ArbCom's findings insofar as they were offered. Mackan79 (talk) 10:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me; this thread seeks to cover specific pertinent questions that have not been addressed directly in other venues. The general narrative is not in need of reiteration. I would like an answer to the query I actually posted. Mackan79 and SV, if neither of you wish to answer it could you move your dialog elsewhere? Durova^Charge! 16:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, sorry for ignoring you. I've been busy today, and will probably be offline for at least a day. I endorse Slim's version. Yes, we both tried. We did raise the matter privately. The RfAr case may not have the word "unwarranted", but it repeatedly named Slim, using active voice, Slim made accusations, Slim didn't substantiate them, Slim was quick to make allegations but tardy in follow up. Slim's choice of forum was unhelpful. This was followed by a passive voice mention of the privacy policy, which didn't name the agent - a breach may have occurred. I think it was FT2, who, in filing the new motion against Slim, used the word "unwarranted", paraphrasing the earlier rulings.

Regarding the forum she chose, Slim went through the proper channels, but despite her best efforts, no progress was made. Then, in a moment of frustration, when Lar turned up to endorse a block against Tony Sidaway, who had been defending her (though not in a manner full of politeness towards WR people!), Slim made what I'll call a snide remark on the noticeboard. No time to look for diffs now. She basically told him to back off, and said she had had enough of his illicit use of checkuser and his wild spinning when caught. There was no reference whatsoever to me. Even so, I don't think I'd have made that remark, but I've been trolled much less than Slim, so I may have higher endurance levels before I tell someone to get stuffed! :-) What she said could easily have been just ignored, but another CU, privy to the discussion on the list, turned up to scold her, and then another, and more little bits slipped out, though not from Slim. Then David Katz NOT SLIMVIRGIN brought it up on the enwiki mailing list, saying that someone must have leaked logs to Slim and suggesting that she be indefinitely blocked until she said how she got the information. (She got it from me.) Slim replied on the list, defending herself. People attacked her and sneered at her. Jayjg said that Lar had told his wife. (Again, he had got that from me - no leaking of confidential discussion on his part.) Lar turned up and told a whole pile of tall stories about his wife's role in offering me "advice and counsel" (despite the fact that we've never encountered each other or sent each other message), and about her "prior involvement" in the case, based on statements I had supposedly previously made to both of them. I saw it and gasped, but stayed out of it. Maybe I should have come forward then. But I didn't, and Slim got more abuse, and finally the RfAr was filed.

So she didn't "choose" the public mailing list. She was criticized and attacked there after someone else brought it to that forum, and she defended herself with more truthfulness than sweetness. As for being unprepared to back up the assertions - she had already made it clear what the issues were - among them that Lar checkusered my sock on very flimsy evidence, that he checked Crum on the pretext of being Wikitumnus when he knew for a fact that he wasn't, that he passed on my identity to his wife, and that he invented a completely non-existent "counselling" relationship between his wife and me to justify his violation of the privacy policy. I do agree that it's unfortunate that Slim didn't submit evidence until just before the case closed, though I can understand her reasons. But consider that she knew ArbCom had the diff that showed the "evidence" that I was Crum" (my revert of vandalism/trolling from his page!!), that ArbCom had the logs showing that Lar checked Crum 38 minutes after finding out that I was Wikitumnus, why should she be criticized for not submitting that? Consider also that her statements that Lar was making up the counselling relationship and prior involvement were based on what I had told her. She could of course have submitted emails from me to her as evidence, where I told her that I had never had never addressed or sent messages to Lar's wife (nor she to me), but she knew that I had made those statements to ArbCom myself, and that I had submitted to ArbCom the relevant emails between Lar and me. So what would be the point? It would have come across as petty and sarcastic if she had submitted to ArbCom copies of what they had received from me, as evidence that I don't know Lar's wife. They knew she knew I had myself said that to them.

That's all I can manage for now, and I may not be editing in the next day or two. ElinorD (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I've heard happens- people submit evidence but then they're asked 'where is the evidence'? so they assume people don't think they evidence they are giving is enough, and stuff like that. Anyway Elinor I think you're flogging a dead horse- people aren't adressing the counselling bit which is either true or untrue, isn't it, it can't be a misunderstanding if E hadn't had anything to do with Lar's wife at all. So it's another instance where people seem to be turning a blind eye to something. Sticky Parkin 01:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that reply, Elinor. It does make more sense in the context of someone else raising the issue on the mailing list first. That mailing list rarely merits serious attention. When drama threads were running fast and thick about me over there a year ago I simply left the list and went back to editing. It's a remarkably effective response. Twice since then people have given the heads up about new nonsense and it was easy to nip in the bud. To toss a salad of metaphors: just call a spade a spade and don't return a foul ball.

Regarding trolling levels, that's an area where you could say I'm not unfamiliar. I was one of the reasons Poetlister got banned from en:wiki in spring 2007 and afterward he went on pretty much the same vendetta against me that he did against SV. There have been other unrelated harassments including one serious enough that the FBI opened an investigation. So yes, I've walked a few miles in moccasins from the same cobbler.

Now here's an odd thing: if any one member of the Arbitration Committee is most equipped to see through Poetlister's shenanigans and their effect, that would be FT2. Ousting Poetlister & Co. this year was in large measure his doing. I'm no apologist for him or the Committee. You can see at the Matthew Hoffman clarification request how sharply FT2 and I disagree sometimes. You can check the top thread of my user talk for a chat with another arbitrator which is--well--not warm and fuzzy. I'm the editor who took the RFC on ArbCom live.

Yet to read over the events of the last few days I keep getting stuck at one point. Suppose for the sake of discussion that her unblock was exactly correct. And suppose everything she posted at the clarification request was correct reasoning and true. What's left is this: when she unblocked she gave a rationale that was syntactically impossible to parse. Was she objecting to the IRC arbitration case and its discretionary sanctions, or did she believe the November blocks were tainted by administrative contact on the IRC channel? That went unanswered for nearly 22 hours before she posted again.

It's not always enough to be correct on the merits. Communication also counts. Communication is especially important for Wikipedians who take decisive action in tough situations. Very few of the editors who do are spot-on about communication every time. I haven't always been and neither has FT2. I walked away from the tools when I erred; it's not a big deal. SlimVirgin will get hers back soon enough and my best wishes go out to her for success. Here's what's worrisome, though. When this thread got started it was as if SV reformulated my question into something I hadn't asked--something perhaps more comfortable to address--and went on at length without supplying any of the requested information. That's the behavior pattern of people who prioritize justification over reflection and improvement. And such people, no matter how intelligent and sincere and usually right they are, also usually encounter a lot of frustration. If I've missed something please set me straight. And thank you again for your long and thoughtful answer. Durova^Charge! 03:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if this is not the point raised by Durova, but I would like to clarify that to say Lar invented a relationship between you (ElinorD) and his wife is just not correct, if you acknowledge that you and he had indeed discussed her views about your situation. You've also continued to make hay of this without explaining why the point is relevant. The only point I see is this: if you knew that Lar had previously discussed your situation with his wife and you had not objected to it ("Your wife is right...") then this would explain the background for why Lar would have said something to his wife. The most important point I can see coming from this is a lack of any bad faith on his part. Whether or not you were close friends, on the other hand, is as far as I am aware simply not relevant, and may even have been an aggravating factor if true. Honestly I can see how you would have been offended if you thought that he mischaracterized something, but it continues to baffle me that you make so much of this as if it would be any basis for an arbitration case or anything similar.

I would also compare: the other day you said that in the Mantanmoreland case I tried to get SlimVirgin sanctioned. This is categorically untrue, and cannot be drawn from anything I said in the case; it is however a direct copy of a claim made by SV. In your above statement you say Tony Sidaway was less than polite, when he said that people who admit posting on WR should be treated like the pieces of shit they are. You then say that SV commented with more truthfulness than sweetness, when she made disparaging and unsupported comments about editor after editor that you are not possibly in a position to evaluate. Setting aside SV's actions, I must wonder how you feel justified in making these kinds of comments, and if you have considered whether you should take more care as you so sharply criticize others. Mackan79 (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Lar passed on his wife's views on the situation to Elnor that is not the same as saying his wife 'counselled' her, as Elinor had no direct conversation with her. If she did not do so, to say Mrs.Lar 'counselled' her was to give an impression whch could be misleading (intentionally or not) IMHO. Anyway it doesn't explain why Lar's wife should be privy to CU results, which should be confidential i.e. not shared with anyone who's not specifically mentioned as allowed to know in policy. Arbcom discussed this on the findings or proposed decision page, that the policy had been breached, I don't think any of them denied it had at least been 'technically' breached but didn't mention it directly in the final writeup, as someone said they'd come up with a different wording they could consider, but they didn't get around to it or vote much on it. Sticky Parkin 18:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, yes, although I could speculate on similar wordings that could have been slightly more reasonable. Nevertheless, I think it is a misunderstanding, primarily because I think it is only reasonable to believe that the previous communication through Lar, or passing of words or whatever one calls it, probably did affect the way he approached the situation, and I can see why he would have said as much. I don't know what he should have said, or whether it violated the privacy policy (I recall some questions on the point), but basically I trust the committee to evaluate that because 1.) if there was a breach it was without any conceivable illegitimate intent, and 2.) I don't see any other reason why it should have been a central issue of the case. Mackan79 (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping 2009 is a great year for you, Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom beat me to it...Happy New Year!--MONGO 15:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Yeast/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing to the site! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.143.87 (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i have recieved a message apparently from you saying that i (or my IP address) have innappropriately edited the article 'Custard'. Can you please note that i have never edited this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.131.61 (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a

(delivered by mabdul 22:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians Ottawahitech (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]