Content deleted Content added
Line 109: Risker, you said:<blockquote>As to the BarkingMoon account, while there was certainly some suggestive evidence, there was also some contradictory and pretty-well-impossible-to-fake technical evidence against it, which is why the checkusers couldn't confirm any connection between the BarkingMoon and Rlevse accounts. </blockquote> Considering that ArbCom knew there was evidence of possible inappropriate editing with his wife's account, and also considering that as a former arb, Rlevse knew how technical CU data worked hence we know how to avoid detection, what can you add now that the cat's out of the bag to convince us that ArbCom didn't leave FAC swinging in the breeze with someone looking to grind an axe against "FAC leadership"? <p>Specifically, it's beginning to look like you all knew that Rlevse was the arb-leaker, and were trying to keep a lid on the damage he could do. Understandable, but FAC has been out here swinging in the breeze, with no help at all from the arbs. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 03:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC) :I can tell you categorically that Rlevse was not the "arb-leaker", and you need to stop casting aspersions like that, SandyGeorgia. Rlevse did not have access to much of the information that was leaked from arbcom-L as he had been removed from the list months before. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 04:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC) :(edit conflict) We were first informed of a potential issue with [[User:JoJo|JoJo]]'s participation in RFAs closed by Rlevse in early November 2010, shortly after the latter had left the Committee. The substantive concern expressed to us at the time was that JoJo had acted—intentionally or otherwise—as a proxy for Rlevse; however, we were also told that "no RfA was so irregular that it's invalid, so there's nothing more that needs to be done". The fact that we were not actually being asked to intervene, coupled with the fact that Rlevse had by that point departed—permanently, as far as anyone could tell at the time—from the project led us to conclude that no substantive action with regard to this report was necessary. :The BarkingMoon account came to our attention in late June 2011, when we were asked to look into the open SPI on that account. The technical evidence regarding the account was ambiguous; while the CheckUser data was suggestive of a connection to Rlevse, it was inconsistent with other information available to the Committee. When directly asked about the BarkingMoon account, Rlevse denied that it was operated by him, and provided an alternative explanation that was consistent with both sets of technical data. The Committee was divided as to whether this explanation was sufficient; however, as we were discussing the matter, BarkingMoon left the project. Given that our (almost exclusive) focus at the time was dealing with the ''arbcom-l'' leaks—indeed, many arbitrators did not participate in the discussion regarding BarkingMoon due to concerns regarding the security of the mailing list—we did not pursue the matter further. :(The earlier concerns with regard to JoJo were brought up in the course of the Committee's discussion of BarkingMoon; however, as those concerns had been related to proxying by a distinct second person rather than any use of multiple accounts by Rlevse himself, they were not seen as particularly relevant to the questions raised by the technical evidence in the case.) :It is highly unlikely that Rlevse was in any way responsible for the ''arbcom-l'' leaks which took place last year, since much of the leaked material consisted of discussions which took place ''after'' he had left the Committee. For example, the first emails disclosed by the leaker were from a conversation which took place in June 2011, by which point Rlevse had not been subscribed to the mailing list for months. :As far as leaving FAC to swing in the breeze is concerned: even if the Committee made a mistake when dealing with BarkingMoon—and I agree that there is certainly a good argument to be made that we did, particularly given subsequent revelations—the recent disruption was caused by PumpkinSky, an account which had never been the subject of investigation or complaints. I don't think we can be blamed for failing to intervene in this case, given that the first we heard of any specific concerns was ''after'' Amalthea had already determined PumpkinSky to be a sockpuppet; we certainly don't investigate the identities of everyone who comments at FAC (and would, I suspect, be rightly pilloried if we ''did'' do so). [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]] [[User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism|[prof]]]</sup> 04:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC) | |||