Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee

What is the status of the case involving me, Lar and Versageek before AUSC?

I received an email from Tznkai on Dec. 16 saying a report would be posted, giving me half a day to respond. I responded. As far as I know, nothing has happened since. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Your response was taken into account. The case has mostly been sitting, waiting for comment from all auditors, but the holidays seem to have slowed us down considerably. I am hoping it will pick up soon. Your case in particular is our first priority once we have full activity again. Dominic·t 21:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

How is my request progressing ?

It's been over 3 weeks now since the original enquiry and still nothing has been forthcoming. Garibaldi Baconfat 21:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It is being actively discussed as of two second ago.--Tznkai (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Marvellous. Garibaldi Baconfat 22:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it being actively actioned, or is that too much to hope for? Garibaldi Baconfat 23:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You should hear something from us soon actually.--Tznkai (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Noroton/JohnWBarber

AUSC's report is grossly flawed in these ways (unless otherwise noted, quotes are from the report and are in italics):

1. The report is vague, so I (and any other reader) have to guess why certain statements are in it. Readers of these reports should not have to guess at your meaning. Although this is the least important point, it's more than a minor point. It should not be that hard for you to make clear why you are making certain statements in these reports. More on this below.
2. The report took more than two months to complete. This is reprehensible.
3. From the "History" section: Over half of it is devoted to describing how much I participated in the AfD and DRV. Volume is irrelevant to a question about checkusering. If AUSC members think it is relevant to why Versageek would checkuser me, they should explain how. Without an explanation, the only other reason I can think of is that the AUSC is making a lame attempt to ridicule me.
4. The report quotes, without comment, a lie amounting to a personal attack: Lar (who was also involved in the debate) shared with Versageek a suspicion that the JohnWBarber was a "an alternate account purely to participate in contentious discussions, and do so aggressively and disruptively." The problem with this statement is that it repeats the lie in an official report without (a) mentioning that it is factually wrong; (b) mentioning that Lar was not a reliable source of information, since his statements in the DRV show him to have been upset, which other editors commented on at the time. (c) By repeating the lie in an official report, the AUSC implicitly endorses it. I pointed out to the committee in an email that a quick check of JohnWBarber's contributions history would show that the account did NOT participate primarily in contentious discussions, much less could it have been created "purely" to do so. Most edits were not to discussions. Most edits to discussions, even AfD discussions, were not "contentious" in that they simply pointed out facts, and the only really hot discussions the account participated in had to do with the Shankbone AfD and DRV. It would have taken minutes for Versageek to go over the 500-edit contributions pages for the JohnWBarber account (I think up to that point they would all have fit on a single contributions-history page) and confirmed that the account did not bear a resemblance to Lar's lying statement. Lar could have done that, too. And the AUSC could certainly have done it. Lar owes me an apology for writing that statement. The AUSC owes me an apology for publishing it without contradicting it. The AUSC, in its reports, should try not to violate Wikipedia behavioral policies, specifically WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. You aren't entitled to accuse me of something without backing it up with facts. You have provided no facts whatever to back up that lie. I pointed out all of this to the AUSC in an email one month ago (December 16). Lar, at least, has the excuse that he was hot under the collar. I can't think of an excuse that the AUSC could use. Again: reprehensible behavior on the part of the committee.
5. His comments were frequently rude, tendentious, confrontational, and passive aggressive. Let me help you: "tendentious, confrontational" comments, so long as they aren't rude, are part of a vigorous debate. "Tendentious" comments, in the sense of having a point of view, are, fundamental elements in a debate, whch is what we call AfD and DRV discussions. If legitimate freedom of discussion is important, then it is important to be able to be "confrontational" when an outrage is committed (and it was very, very widely accepted in the DRV that Jay Wartenberg had committed an outrageous act in quietly changing WP:DEL policy, then justifying an AfD closure according to the language he had just changed -- there is a consensus on that outrageous act which is evident on the DRV and WP:DEL talk page). As for "passive aggressive" -- your point is incomprehensible. I can guess what comment of mine you're referring to, but it doesn't matter: passive-aggressive behavior, even if I engaged in it, can't be a reason either to checkuser or block. As for "rude", this seems to be a weaselly way to accuse me of being "disruptive" without using the word. You know and I know that my behavior in the AfD, the DRV or even on JayWartenberg's talk page was not "disruptive" by any stretch of interpretation. I stated, to him on his talk page, that his actions were outrageous. I said the same in the DRV. To say so is not even to violate WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF. As the AUSC well knows. The tone of my comments weren't even as aggressive as what anyone can find every day at WP:ANI or an arbitration talk page. No one has alleged that I engaged in any kind of disruptive behavior other than possibly uncivil comments (which weren't uncivil). My actions did not "stir up controversy", a phrase in WP:SOCK, because I only reacted to the controversy that Jay Wartenberg stirred up all by himself -- that DRV would have been filed and taken the same course no matter what I did (my comments were the same as loads of other comments and their tone was milder than plenty of other comments on either side). And if you've read it, you know it. So what's the reason for this statement other than to bash me? What evidence can you possibly have to back up the statement of yours I just quoted? If you're going to accuse me of something, give the evidence. You owe me that.
6. It was reasonable to suspect the JohnWBarber account as an account intended to avoid scrutiny. This statement is deceptive -- deliberately so, since I pointed out the problem with it in my Dec. 16 email: The scrutiny that editors are supposed to avoid is legitimate scrutiny (see 5th bullet in this link to the version of WP:SOCK in place when Versageek made the block [1])I withdraw my objection to this, as I state below, it isn't the checkusering that I object to. It's the report. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
7. The JohnWBarber, Noroton, Reconsideration, and CountryDoctor accounts all edited in overlapping periods in the month of October. AUSC states that it is only considering whether or not Versageek's decision to checkuser was justified. This information about the alternate accounts could only have been known to Versageek once she'd already checkusered my account. What the hell is the point of AUSC including this point in its report, then? To justify the block that you state your report is not going to consider? Assuming that's the implicit point (which doesn't reflect well on the AUSC members), let me refute it, since it's my reputation you're so negligently playing around with: Since the accounts, other than Noroton (the original account) were created in November '08 (CountryDoctor in June '08), when alternative accounts were discouraged by WP:SOCK policy but only disallowed if they were abused in specific ways, the next logical, reasonable step for Versageek, before blocking, would have been to consider whether or not (a) it could reasonably be assumed that I was harming the encyclopedia or someone in it in some way; or (b) whether it was reasonable to think I was simply unaware of the policy change disallowing those kind of alternate accounts. Since I'd been using the accounts in roughly the same way for the past year and doing nothing disruptive with them, there was no reason to block.
8. There was no clear indication or communication that JohnWBarber/Noroton/Reconsideration/CountryDoctor was attempting to make a clean start. Again, the AUSC goes beyond the stated purpose of the report, as stated in the opening paragraph, and attempts here to justify the block. The AUSC and Versageek have stated that the concern was my edits to the Shankbone AfD and DRV. I put up a resignation notice on the Noroton talk page and stopped editing from that account before the AfD started. As of Oct. 28, when I was checkusered and blocked, there was nothing having to do with clean starts in WP:SOCK that was violated (other than having multiple accounts, which is, in this case, a trivial violation, since my having multiple accounts never caused any harm). What is the purpose of including this point, if not to bash me?
9. The Noroton account has had poor interactions with User:David Shankbone, the subject of the David Shankbone article. This statement is completely malicious on your part. First off -- yet again -- what does this have to do with Versageek's decision to checkuser, the ostensible scope of this report? Nothing, since she could not have known about it before checkusering me. As I said in my email of one month ago, (a) none of my statements in the AfD or DRV were antagonistic to Shankbone; (b) I held one position, favoring deletion, then changed my mind early on when a new fact came to light (about adequate sourcing) that undermined my argument, all the while adhering to the same principles that an article should meet notibility and other policy criteria if it is to be kept; (3) I barely commented on Shankbone the person, and did so very mildly and certainly not in an antagonistic way; (4) given all that, my prior history with Shankbone the person was completely irrelevant in considering my comments about Shankbone, the article, and therefore would not have factored into anyone's legitimate consideration of my comments. By including this statement in the AUSC's official report, you automatically lend meaning and authority to it -- meaning (substance) that it doesn't have, and authority that is irresponsible. You imply that my reason for getting involved in the AfD was to harm Shankbone. But you have no justification for implying that. None at all. I had previously apologized to Shankbone for some intemperate statements I'd made about him months before -- although he hadn't asked for an apology -- and although I told him I disapproved of some of his conduct, we didn't have any kind of an ongoing dispute and didn't interact with each other. So what's your point, AUSC? This can't be used to justify a checkusering because it couldn't have been known, and it can't even justify a block since I never went after Shankbone with any alternative account. The only point here seems to be do bash me. Yet again.
10. There was a legitimate reason to checkuser JohnWBarber: You'll find it in the second bullet of the "Illegitimate uses" section of WP:SOCK as that page existed at the time Versageek checkusered me: Editing project space: Alternate accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections. [2] (emphasis added) Although that prohibition didn't exist when I created the alternative account, and although I never used the account to harm anyone or harm the encyclopedia, Versageek could not have known that before checkusering me (and after checkusering me, the proper course of conduct would have been to note that this provision wasn't always in WP:SOCK and that since I'd been using the JohnWBarber account for about a year, I could not be expected to know of the change -- and therefore she should have gone to me and questioned me about use of the account, reminding me of policy, since after the checkusering she had no legitimate reason to block and publicly humiliate me, but I see that last point is beyond the scope of AUSC's report; just thought I'd make that point because AUSC's report itself has so much in it that is beyond the scope of whether or not Versageek should have checkusered me). But that legitimate reason to checkuser doesn't excuse WP:AUSC's repulsive behavior here, for which I'm owed an apology and a complete rewrite.
11. There is no indication, or reason to suspect ulterior motives by Versageek. It isn't the checkusering that ever concerned me so much as the block and the actions surrounding the block, as well as Lar's actions in reporting me. It's when you look at the block and the way I was blocked that the question of ulterior motives comes up -- and that question is unavoidable, given the facts. Despite going over my actions (with your assumptions of bad faith, with repetition and with points irrelevant to the checkusering), you fail to mention anything about Lar's communications with Versageek regarding this matter. I had specifically asked, in my November email to NewYorkbrad (which he tells me was passed on to the AUSC members), about those communications and about these other points:
    1. "Please review the entire communications between Lar and Versageek that dealt with checkusering my accounts, including any communications with other parties discussing the matter with Versageek before the block, if there were any, either in a discussion including Lar or not including Lar."
    2. "Did Lar ask that anyone else involved in that Shankbone AfD and DRV be checkusered?"
    3. "Will the committee make public the text of the request and Lar's [I meant to say "Versageek's"] response so that everyone can see the tone of the language?" (I asked this because if Lar was obviously upset in his communication to Versageek, she had even more responsibility to review the request carefully before acting on it.)
    4. "Versageek told me on her talk page (20:31, 1 November), 'I emailed both the arbcom & functionaries email lists shortly after I blocked the accounts.' Please review that email and make it public." Did you review it?

Don't think for one minute here that participating in an official position in Wikipedia administration exempts you from normal behavioral policies. I realize that incompetence can sometimes be mistaken for malice, but it takes a particularly gross incompetence to make the same mistakes in this report after I'd pointed out the problems in an email sent a month ago about the draft of the report, which was almost exactly the same as the final version. I told you what the problems were and you posted the same egregious statements anyway. You don't deserve an assumption of good faith from me, since I've reviewed your statement twice now and know that it doesn't agree with the facts, which I've also reviewed. Again, you owe me an apology and a rewrite. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Responding only to point 2, reading carefully and considering your vociferous and lengthy complaints lengthened the timeline of this complaint considerably.--Tznkai (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

My lengthy email of November 19 would explain the first month (and I wouldn't have complained). Then came my Dec. 16 email (less lengthy, very vociferous) in response to your presenting me with the draft. Then there was another month's delay, which produced one change: the first paragraph was added to the report. Appalling. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The second gap was my fault. I took the 21st to the 5th off for the holiday to see friends and family.--Tznkai (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

And in the 10 days from Jan 5-15, or from Dec. 16-22, if you'd cut out the material in the report that was irrelevant to the question of whether or not the checkusering was justified, I'd have little to object to. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of this is pretty insubstantial. Lar's quote provides context: the check that was run was instigated by that request, and it is not a lie or a personal attack to repeat the phrasing of the request. You left out of your quote that those words came from Lar's suspicion; claiming that the report endorses it is pure fantasy. It was your participation in that AfD that prompted the CheckUser request and subsequent check, so it is no accident, or act of ridicule, that there is significant mention of it in the report. Incidentally, you do, after a couple thousand word, note that you are more concerned by the block and the CheckUser request than the use of CheckUser. This committee is not the place to be complaining about those (as you have done repeatedly), and you should use the normal dispute resolution channels.

In much of this complaint (i.e., points 7-9) you seem to be confusing our phrase "the use of CheckUser by Versageek" for the decision to use CheckUser. When someone uses CheckUser, it typically leads to a list of accounts that share an IP or IP range and might or might not be related. It takes a determination by the CheckUser that there is sufficient reason to believe that a set of accounts could be related before they can be released publicly, and this generally cannot be decided by just any administrator because of the sensitivity of the information involved. The information about the three other accounts is very relevant to the question of whether the CheckUser in this case was justified in making the relationship between the accounts public, and not just in whether she should have checked to begin with. They are not gratuitous bashing as you seem to think; indeed, they are all true.

You asked us to investigate the use of CheckUser in a case where you acted disruptively and in such a way that you appeared to be a sockpuppet (and, moreover, appeared to be using sockpuppets wrongfully). There isn't really a way for us to have decided that the use of CheckUser was justified without also finding that that was how you acted, and the possibility that we would say so was a risk you took. Dominic·t 07:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)