Wikipediocracy

Vigilant wrote:

Kelly Martin wrote:

TungstenCarbide wrote:This young man was a software developer and administrator and he didn't know how to avoid CheckUser with his sock?

Oh dear God, he needs a keeper. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for him.

To be fair, if he were competent, why would he be working for the WMF?

It's an excellent question to which I do not have a good response.
If you could program for shit, you'd be working for someone who paid you bank...especially in silicon valley right now, which is hopping.

I turn away 3-4 recruiters a week.

That's a good point. I have a close relative who is a developer and turns down weekly aggressive recruiting efforts. She does not live in Oakland (where I would live), that's for sure.

TungstenCarbide wrote:This young man was a software developer and administrator and he didn't know how to avoid CheckUser with his sock?

Oh dear God, he needs a keeper. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for him.

I'm beggining to feel sorry for Wikipedia.

Examiner article has been updated.

I know a wikipediocracy member who has been very quiet during all this.

Zoloft wrote:I know a wikipediocracy member who has been very quiet during all this.

Last visited: Sun Apr 22, 2012 2:48 am

MilesMoney wrote:

Zoloft wrote:I know a wikipediocracy member who has been very quiet during all this.

Last visited: Sun Apr 22, 2012 2:48 am

But the email button still works...

Zoloft wrote:

MilesMoney wrote:

Zoloft wrote:I know a wikipediocracy member who has been very quiet during all this.

Last visited: Sun Apr 22, 2012 2:48 am

But the email button still works...

I find that I have nothing to say to Mr. Smith. Except maybe, "why the fuck did you think 'Kaldari' was some sort of improvement?".

Amazing.
Apparently the fact of disclosing his webpages is...is...."a violation of our WP:OUTING (T-H-L)policy".(link)

Good thing for the WMF that this took place on the weekend, as otherwise their staff would be spending all their time in the office reading this thread, the ANI thread, and then taking frequent trips to the break room to talk about it with each other out of Moller's earshot.

The Adversary wrote:Amazing.
Apparently the fact of disclosing his webpages is...is...."a violation of our WP:OUTING (T-H-L)policy".(link)

Well, depending on circumstances. Say a typically anonymous Wikipedia editor editing under an handle finds himself or herself at odds with someone else who digs up and posts his or her website not related to any Wikipedia activity. Because the single further step of running Internet tool "whois" (or whatever) can provide the personal information of the website owner, it could, depending on circumstances, be reasonably construed as back-door privacy-based harassment.

Can those be the circumstances here? Kaldari posts under his surname not a nickname, self-identifies at his userpage as a WMF employee, and says further there that he resides in Oakland. Can he nonetheless be "outed" in Wikipedia's parlance of that word? Eric referred, on Wikipedia, to Snuffsters.com (heh) as belonging to Kaldari.

First sentences of WP:OUTING wrote:Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not.

I don't think it qualifies as WP:OUTING, neither was privacy-based harassment Eric's intent. Oh, criticism was his intent, just not privacy-based harassment. It's difficult to make the charge stick because Kaldari already disclosed portions of his identity. You run "whois" on Snuffsters.com and you get more specifics, but... There's also the fact he's a WMF employee, he wants to be an anonymous WMF employee, really?

All the same I think it'd be a fair move for an oversighter to wipe out the references and discussion of Snuffsters.com at WP:AN/ANI. I don't think Eric should be punished for it.

A variation on this theme was when those turkeys used some "whois" website as a reference at Greg Kohs since-deleted Wikipedia article. They transparently were harassing him by publishing his information that was revealed by his registration of Wikipediocracy.com. It was a strange use and unconventional sourcing of article information, "dodgy" as the British say.

Just in case anyone doesn't want to go onto Jimbo's talk page to check out his response, this is it:

Jimbo Wales wrote:It looks like he's resigned the admin bit, and that's certainly the right thing for him to have done. Perspective is important - if I understand the thread, he made a single edit as a sock puppet, was discovered by a standard checkuser, and chose to resign adminship rather than go through an arbitration process that would have likely ended up in the same place. Thanks for notifying me. I don't see that there's much for me to do or say. (Some in the thread are raising issues about his employment but that's not something I am involved with nor something I can comment on.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

At least he didn't brush it entirely under the carpet, for a change.

The Adversary wrote:Amazing.
Apparently the fact of disclosing his webpages is...is...."a violation of our WP:OUTING (T-H-L)policy".(link)

Yet attempting to disclose my real life identity wasn't.

The Adversary wrote:Amazing.
Apparently the fact of disclosing his webpages is...is...."a violation of our WP:OUTING (T-H-L)policy".(link)

I guess by that (deranged) logic, it was a violation of OUTING to disclose Sarah Stierch's job-board paid editing pages, which she never revealed on Wikipedia.

thekohser wrote:

The Adversary wrote:Amazing.
Apparently the fact of disclosing his webpages is...is...."a violation of our WP:OUTING (T-H-L)policy".(link)

I guess by that (deranged) logic, it was a violation of OUTING to disclose Sarah Stierch's job-board paid editing pages, which she never revealed on Wikipedia.

Sarah's a woman. No one was ever going to go there.

Kaldari's attempt to invoke WP:OUTING is a last-ditch effort on his part to save what little is left of his reputation. The revelation about snuffster occurred well after the decision to revoke his administrative rights had already occurred, and while that revelation may have influenced the decision to revoke his editinterface global right, that revocation would probably have happened anyway. He is now trying to set himself up as the victim of the Evil People at Wikipediocracy, to shift the blame away from his own actions and onto The Other. Even more important since his first effort to dismiss the snuffster issue failed when his lie was called out. A true Wikipedian to the core, avoiding responsibility whenever possible.

Kelly Martin wrote:Kaldari's attempt to invoke WP:OUTING is a last-ditch effort on his part to save what little is left of his reputation. The revelation about snuffster occurred well after the decision to revoke his administrative rights had already occurred, and while that revelation may have influenced the decision to revoke his editinterface global right, that revocation would probably have happened anyway. He is now trying to set himself up as the victim of the Evil People at Wikipediocracy, to shift the blame away from his own actions and onto The Other. Even more important since his first effort to dismiss the snuffster issue failed when his lie was called out. A true Wikipedian to the core, avoiding responsibility whenever possible.

Tell that to GWH.

This edit where you accused Ryan Kaldari of "obsessions with dead-kid-porn" is in violation of our policies against personal attacks, and in violation of the Child Protection policy (which specifically states that any such claims SHOULD NOT BE made publically or be subject to discussion: See Wikipedia:Child protection#Handling of reports.

Per that policy I could delete and Revison Delete that comment immediately. However, in the interest of not affecting your other participation in the thread, I strongly urge you merely to delete that particular claim, and if you believe you have a valid case there to file the Arbcom notification via email. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That edit is very clear: "I would report any concerns I might have about any user's obsessions with dead-kid-porn to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org." It relates to hypothetical concerns that any user might have about any other user and advises them - as you do above - to not discuss them on noticeboards but to instead address them directly to arbcom. It accuses noone, names noone. I suggest you strike your comment "where you accused Ryan Kaldari..." Don't attempt to bully me by reading into my edit something which it does not say. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 02:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted it. Your attempt above to justify it as not actually accusing anyone of anything is specious and insulting.

If you reinsert it I will block you per policy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =598638850

You know I am really struggling with that website of his. This news report tells of an ‘internet troll’ who posted videos and messages mocking the deaths of teenagers, including a girl hit by a train.

The day after Natasha's death in February, Duffy posted comments including "I fell asleep on the track lolz" on the Facebook tribute page created by her brother James, 17.

He was jailed. How different is that from actually hosting a website with entries like the one on JonBenét Ramsey. The entry (now deleted) shows a picture of a 6 year old in one of those American beauty pageant costumes. On the right, there are the dates of her birth and death, type of death (murder), method of death (strangulation), the things she left behind ("my virginity, my cowgirl outfit, and my bloodstained tiara. Also a mother with bitter unrequited dreams of a Miss America victory"). This is followed by 'eulogies' such as "such a Sweet Child, and from what I hear a really good lay!". And from 'Aborted' there is

I could have looked like her! … but NO, I took the quick ride down the suction tube then to the trash heap … do not pass goal, do not collect $200, BooHoo.

I want to vomit.

Peter Damian wrote:Tell that to GWH.

This edit where you accused Ryan Kaldari of "obsessions with dead-kid-porn" is in violation of our policies against personal attacks, and in violation of the Child Protection policy (which specifically states that any such claims SHOULD NOT BE made publically or be subject to discussion: See Wikipedia:Child protection#Handling of reports.
Per that policy I could delete and Revison Delete that comment immediately. However, in the interest of not affecting your other participation in the thread, I strongly urge you merely to delete that particular claim, and if you believe you have a valid case there to file the Arbcom notification via email. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
That edit is very clear: "I would report any concerns I might have about any user's obsessions with dead-kid-porn to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org." It relates to hypothetical concerns that any user might have about any other user and advises them - as you do above - to not discuss them on noticeboards but to instead address them directly to arbcom. It accuses noone, names noone. I suggest you strike your comment "where you accused Ryan Kaldari..." Don't attempt to bully me by reading into my edit something which it does not say. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 02:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I have deleted it. Your attempt above to justify it as not actually accusing anyone of anything is specious and insulting.
If you reinsert it I will block you per policy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =598638850

Yup, people are taking up sides and the initial skirmishes are already under way. Here we have GWH executing a preemptive takeout on Blackberry Sorbet. Expect more of this for at least the next couple of days, while the factions sort out who is on whose side.

The policy on child porn indicates off Wiki activity is part of it. Someone should e-mail a report to arbcom.

I think hosting violence and phonographic fantasies against dead six-year-olds does deserve a jail sentence. Certainly it should not merit a WMF job.

Probably the above quoted content is sufficient to get the ball rolling, but maybe including more information would help. Remove WMF's plausible deniability. And thank GWH for bringing this to everyone's attention.

And thank Ryan Kaldari's defenders for fighting against blocking him, by granting him the privilege of the white boy in-crowd, hopefully his vile proclivities can cost him something. Of course they won't, he's not female like Sarah.

Peter Damian wrote:You know I am really struggling with that website of his. This news report tells of an ‘internet troll’ who posted videos and messages mocking the deaths of teenagers, including a girl hit by a train.

The day after Natasha's death in February, Duffy posted comments including "I fell asleep on the track lolz" on the Facebook tribute page created by her brother James, 17.

He was jailed. How different is that from actually hosting a website with entries like the one on JonBenét Ramsey. The entry (now deleted) shows a picture of a 6 year old in one of those American beauty pageant costumes. On the right, there are the dates of her birth and death, type of death (murder), method of death (strangulation), the things she left behind ("my virginity, my cowgirl outfit, and my bloodstained tiara. Also a mother with bitter unrequited dreams of a Miss America victory"). This is followed by 'eulogies' such as "such a Sweet Child, and from what I hear a really good lay!". And from 'Aborted' there is

I could have looked like her! … but NO, I took the quick ride down the suction tube then to the trash heap … do not pass goal, do not collect $200, BooHoo.

I want to vomit.

The big difference is that Duffy is British and Kaldari is American. Except in cases of direct harassment or threatening of the family, such cases are extremely problematic to prosecute because of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Otherwise, I'm not seeing any significant differences. Instead of whining about "harassment" and "outing," Kaldari should be feeling relieved and thankful because of an accident of birth.

Are the laws so different between the US and the UK? Perhaps someone living in the States ought to file a report to the relevant authorities anyway.

I hope Ryan stays at the WMF.

He'll be a perennial abscess in their midst much like Oliver Keyes.
Everyone knows what horrible, awful people they really are, yet they feel compelled to defend them as "of the body".
The immune system of the organization has been suborned by the disease.

These guys are a cancer within the WMF.

enwikibadscience wrote: I think hosting violence and phonographic fantasies against dead six-year-olds does deserve a jail sentence.

Are you prepared to make that statement on the record?

Hex wrote:

enwikibadscience wrote: I think hosting violence and phonographic fantasies against dead six-year-olds does deserve a jail sentence.

Are you prepared to make that statement on the record?

Lol.

Malleus wrote:Are the laws so different between the US and the UK? Perhaps someone living in the States ought to file a report to the relevant authorities anyway.

No point, there is nothing about snuffster that is criminally prosecutable in the United States. Tasteless, definitely, but not criminal. There's a very small chance that you might talk a prosecutor into issuing a subpoena (which would be exceedingly annoying for Ryan) but it's a very small chance, and I would view trying to manipulate a prosecutor into doing that as a particularly pernicious form of harassment.

The UK case is distinct because the person in that case targeted individuals who had actually died, and their families, for harassment, with the clear intent of causing emotional injury to those families. The content on Snuffster, at least what I saw, generally did not; the only clearly identifiable individual was JonBenet Ramsey, and I'm fairly certain that was "social commentary" (albeit a rather puerile and juvenile form, but really not much worse than the garbage Daniel Tosh vomits out on a weekly basis) rather than targeted harassment.

Triptych wrote:Well, depending on circumstances. Say a typically anonymous Wikipedia editor editing under an handle finds himself or herself at odds with someone else who digs up and posts his or her website not related to any Wikipedia activity. Because the single further step of running Internet tool "whois" (or whatever) can provide the personal information of the website owner, it could, depending on circumstances, be reasonably construed as back-door privacy-based harassment.

Can those be the circumstances here? Kaldari posts under his surname not a nickname, self-identifies at his userpage as a WMF employee, and says further there that he resides in Oakland. Can he nonetheless be "outed" in Wikipedia's parlance of that word? Eric referred, on Wikipedia, to Snuffsters.com (heh) as belonging to Kaldari.

Outing, at Wikipedia, is defined as "revealing on Wikipedia any information about a Wikipedian that was obtained by a source other than Wikipedia". It's the converse of "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas", basically. The prohibition on outing only applies to Wikipedians, of course; anyone who is "not of the body" can be outed with impunity, and you can out someone to prove that they are "not of the body", but in so doing you run the risk that your conclusion that they are "not of the body" will not be accepted by the community. Persons who are "not of the body" are fair game.

While Kaldari has been a Bad Boy, it remains to be seen whether he is still "of the body". That question is still being played out, although I think the conclusion will be that he is still "of the body" unless he does something especially stupid in the next few days.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall come Monday at WMF offices in San Francisco.

Vigilant wrote:I'd love to be a fly on the wall come Monday at WMF offices in San Francisco.

Indeed, that discussion should be interesting, and will likely play a large role in determining his fate both at the WMF and in Wikipedia.

Kelly Martin wrote:

Triptych wrote:Well, depending on circumstances. Say a typically anonymous Wikipedia editor editing under an handle finds himself or herself at odds with someone else who digs up and posts his or her website not related to any Wikipedia activity. Because the single further step of running Internet tool "whois" (or whatever) can provide the personal information of the website owner, it could, depending on circumstances, be reasonably construed as back-door privacy-based harassment.

Can those be the circumstances here? Kaldari posts under his surname not a nickname, self-identifies at his userpage as a WMF employee, and says further there that he resides in Oakland. Can he nonetheless be "outed" in Wikipedia's parlance of that word? Eric referred, on Wikipedia, to Snuffsters.com (heh) as belonging to Kaldari.

Outing, at Wikipedia, is defined as "revealing on Wikipedia any information about a Wikipedian that was obtained by a source other than Wikipedia". It's the converse of "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas", basically. The prohibition on outing only applies to Wikipedians, of course; anyone who is "not of the body" can be outed with impunity, and you can out someone to prove that they are "not of the body", but in so doing you run the risk that your conclusion that they are "not of the body" will not be accepted by the community. Persons who are "not of the body" are fair game.

While Kaldari has been a Bad Boy, it remains to be seen whether he is still "of the body". That question is still being played out, although I think the conclusion will be that he is still "of the body" unless he does something especially stupid in the next few days.

I suspect the white-male aura will protect him from any consequences.

However, I would not bet on him not doing something stupid in the next few days, in spite of the fact that I suspect the emergency e-mail to him said, "Shut the fuck up already and let this die on its own for God's sake."

Kelly Martin wrote:

Vigilant wrote:I'd love to be a fly on the wall come Monday at WMF offices in San Francisco.

Indeed, that discussion should be interesting, and will likely play a large role in determining his fate both at the WMF and in Wikipedia.

I would dearly love to hear how the WMF intends to keep both Oliver Keyes and Ryan "Kaldari" after unceremoniously ejecting Sarah Striech.

Makes me wonder if Sarah would have a course of action at a hearing with respect to her termination given the leniency shown for males with far worse behavior within the WMF. A wrongful termination suit seems like it would have a relatively good chance of success at this point.

Vigilant wrote: Makes me wonder if Sarah would have a course of action at a hearing with respect to her termination given the leniency shown for males with far worse behavior within the WMF. A wrongful termination suit seems like it would have a relatively good chance of success at this point.

Let's not blame the victim here. The fault lies entirely with Sarah for failing to sprout a penis. This left WMF with no choice but to treat her like a woman instead of a human being. I feel so sorry for them, being put in such an awkward position.

MilesMoney wrote:

Vigilant wrote: Makes me wonder if Sarah would have a course of action at a hearing with respect to her termination given the leniency shown for males with far worse behavior within the WMF. A wrongful termination suit seems like it would have a relatively good chance of success at this point.

Let's not blame the victim here. The fault lies entirely with Sarah for failing to sprout a penis. This left WMF with no choice but to treat her like a woman instead of a human being. I feel so sorry for them, being put in such an awkward position.

To be fair to Sarah, I doubt very much that Oliver or Ryan are particularly well endowed given how much erectile tissue each keeps above his neck.

Kelly Martin wrote:

Triptych wrote:Well, depending on circumstances. Say a typically anonymous Wikipedia editor editing under an handle finds himself or herself at odds with someone else who digs up and posts his or her website not related to any Wikipedia activity. Because the single further step of running Internet tool "whois" (or whatever) can provide the personal information of the website owner, it could, depending on circumstances, be reasonably construed as back-door privacy-based harassment.

Can those be the circumstances here? Kaldari posts under his surname not a nickname, self-identifies at his userpage as a WMF employee, and says further there that he resides in Oakland. Can he nonetheless be "outed" in Wikipedia's parlance of that word? Eric referred, on Wikipedia, to Snuffsters.com (heh) as belonging to Kaldari.

Outing, at Wikipedia, is defined as "revealing on Wikipedia any information about a Wikipedian that was obtained by a source other than Wikipedia". It's the converse of "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas", basically. The prohibition on outing only applies to Wikipedians, of course; anyone who is "not of the body" can be outed with impunity, and you can out someone to prove that they are "not of the body", but in so doing you run the risk that your conclusion that they are "not of the body" will not be accepted by the community. Persons who are "not of the body" are fair game.

While Kaldari has been a Bad Boy, it remains to be seen whether he is still "of the body". That question is still being played out, although I think the conclusion will be that he is still "of the body" unless he does something especially stupid in the next few days.

I think that analysis hangs on what's meant by "personal information". WP's outing policy gives examples such as real name, employer, address and so on. I don't see that for a person such as Kaldari who has clearly and quite deliberately outed himself (was anyone in any doubt as to his real name, employer, where he lived and so on?) Had I posted his address or telephone number, for instance, that would indeed come under the rubric of outing, but I didn't, I simply drew attention to one of his web sites.

Vigilant wrote:

Kelly Martin wrote:

Vigilant wrote:I'd love to be a fly on the wall come Monday at WMF offices in San Francisco.

Indeed, that discussion should be interesting, and will likely play a large role in determining his fate both at the WMF and in Wikipedia.

I would dearly love to hear how the WMF intends to keep both Oliver Keyes and Ryan "Kaldari" after unceremoniously ejecting Sarah Striech.

Makes me wonder if Sarah would have a course of action at a hearing with respect to her termination given the leniency shown for males with far worse behavior within the WMF. A wrongful termination suit seems like it would have a relatively good chance of success at this point.

Not to mention fostering a hostile work environment (presuming IRC is part of the WMF work environment). She would have to move back to Oakland to pursue this, however.

Malleus wrote:I think that analysis hangs on what's meant by "personal information". WP's outing policy gives examples such as real name, employer, address and so on. I don't see that for a person such as Kaldari who has clearly and quite deliberately outed himself (was anyone in any doubt as to his real name, employer, where he lived and so on?) Had I posted his address or telephone number, for instance, that would indeed come under the rubric of outing, but I didn't, I simply drew attention to one of his web sites.

For the purpose of its "outing" policy Wikipedia defines "personal information" as "any information about or related to the person". The definition is to be interpreted as broadly as possible; thus, the fact that a person is the proprietor of a given website is "personal information" by Wikipedia's definition. The narrower meaning of "personally identifiable information" (information which can be used to connect a person with their legal identity) generally used by privacy laws and privacy activists has been explicitly rejected by Wikipedia as too narrow.

Note that the rule will be interpreted much more narrowly if the person is someone who is not clearly "of the body", if the alleged offender is of much higher rank than the victim, or (especially) if the offender is of sufficiently high rank and is outing a lower-ranked victim for the express purpose of showing that they are not "of the body". Like all Wikipedia policies, the interpretation is necessarily colored by the relative community status of the alleged offenders and victims.

Vigilant wrote:

Kelly Martin wrote:

Vigilant wrote:I'd love to be a fly on the wall come Monday at WMF offices in San Francisco.

Indeed, that discussion should be interesting, and will likely play a large role in determining his fate both at the WMF and in Wikipedia.

I would dearly love to hear how the WMF intends to keep both Oliver Keyes and Ryan "Kaldari" after unceremoniously ejecting Sarah Striech.

Makes me wonder if Sarah would have a course of action at a hearing with respect to her termination given the leniency shown for males with far worse behavior within the WMF. A wrongful termination suit seems like it would have a relatively good chance of success at this point.

Heck, the WMF lawyers issuing the cease-and-desist to others are guilty of the same COI Sarah is, but I bet very few of them, if any, ever stooped as low as mocking murdered children.

Yet, of all the people accused of the COI crime, they could not run fast enough to fire her and air her guilt via public letter.

MilesMoney wrote:

Vigilant wrote: Makes me wonder if Sarah would have a course of action at a hearing with respect to her termination given the leniency shown for males with far worse behavior within the WMF. A wrongful termination suit seems like it would have a relatively good chance of success at this point.

Let's not blame the victim here. The fault lies entirely with Sarah for failing to sprout a penis. This left WMF with no choice but to treat her like a woman instead of a human being. I feel so sorry for them, being put in such an awkward position.

+1

Kelly Martin wrote:

Vigilant wrote:I'd love to be a fly on the wall come Monday at WMF offices in San Francisco.

Indeed, that discussion should be interesting, and will likely play a large role in determining his fate both at the WMF and in Wikipedia.

Quite so. Much of that may well depend on how the rest of the coders at the WMF feel about him. If he is "One of Us" in the view of "Jorm" and the rest of The Gang That Couldn't Code Straight, they will likely fight to keep him. However, if they have been looking for a pretext to be rid of him because even they think he's an asshole, he's toast.

Vigilant wrote:

MilesMoney wrote:

Vigilant wrote: Makes me wonder if Sarah would have a course of action at a hearing with respect to her termination given the leniency shown for males with far worse behavior within the WMF. A wrongful termination suit seems like it would have a relatively good chance of success at this point.

Let's not blame the victim here. The fault lies entirely with Sarah for failing to sprout a penis. This left WMF with no choice but to treat her like a woman instead of a human being. I feel so sorry for them, being put in such an awkward position.

To be fair to Sarah, I doubt very much that Oliver or Ryan are particularly well endowed given how much erectile tissue each keeps above his neck.

You're only proving my point: it's a low bar for Sarah to meet, a rather small penis. The technical term is "Kaldari-sized".

Another ironic bit here.

How does one live with so much cognitive dissonance?

Btw Ryan, who is "Emily Kendall" to you?

Game's afoot, boy.

Vigilant wrote:Another ironic bit here.

How does one live with so much cognitive dissonance?

Btw Ryan, who is "Emily Kendall" to you?

Game's afoot, boy.

The last entry on the first page is for "Ryan Smith", which is his original name...

MilesMoney wrote:

Vigilant wrote:Another ironic bit here.

How does one live with so much cognitive dissonance?

Btw Ryan, who is "Emily Kendall" to you?

Game's afoot, boy.

The last entry on the first page is for "Ryan Smith", which is his original name...

I know that. It's called a "leading question".

Here's another gem.
http://archive.is/jIxtC

Calling out google news for being autocratic.

The thing is, I have stuff to do today.
I have pages and pages of shit just like this.
I'll dribble it out over the next two weeks while we see where this goes.

Kelly Martin wrote:

Malleus wrote:I think that analysis hangs on what's meant by "personal information". WP's outing policy gives examples such as real name, employer, address and so on. I don't see that for a person such as Kaldari who has clearly and quite deliberately outed himself (was anyone in any doubt as to his real name, employer, where he lived and so on?) Had I posted his address or telephone number, for instance, that would indeed come under the rubric of outing, but I didn't, I simply drew attention to one of his web sites.

For the purpose of its "outing" policy Wikipedia defines "personal information" as "any information about or related to the person". The definition is to be interpreted as broadly as possible; thus, the fact that a person is the proprietor of a given website is "personal information" by Wikipedia's definition. The narrower meaning of "personally identifiable information" (information which can be used to connect a person with their legal identity) generally used by privacy laws and privacy activists has been explicitly rejected by Wikipedia as too narrow.

Note that the rule will be interpreted much more narrowly if the person is someone who is not clearly "of the body", if the alleged offender is of much higher rank than the victim, or (especially) if the offender is of sufficiently high rank and is outing a lower-ranked victim for the express purpose of showing that they are not "of the body". Like all Wikipedia policies, the interpretation is necessarily colored by the relative community status of the alleged offenders and victims.

That's an absurd and illogical definition. For instance, last year I went to a local WP meetup. It was subsequently reported on WP along with my picture. Is that outing by your interpretation?

Malleus wrote:That's an absurd and illogical definition. For instance, last year I went to a local WP meetup. It was subsequently reported on WP along with my picture. Is that outing by your interpretation?

Associating a Wikipedian with a photograph of that Wikipedian would generally be "outing" unless the Wikipedian in question consents to the association. At the Wikipedia meetups I've been to, it has been customary to ask every individual if they consent to be photographed, and to not publicize photographs of anyone who does not consent. Failure to adhere to this standard of conduct may result in adverse community consequences if one of the people photographed is of higher Wikipolitical standing than the photographer (or uploader) and chooses to make an issue of it.

Wikipedia's policies are often absurd and illogical; this is often by design. You set far too high a bar if you expect Wikipedia's policies to be logical and free of absurdity.

Kelly Martin wrote:Failure to adhere to this standard of conduct may result in adverse community consequences if one of the people photographed is of higher Wikipolitical standing than the photographer (or uploader) and chooses to make an issue of it.

Wikipedia's policies are often absurd and illogical; this is often by design. You set far too high a bar if you expect Wikipedia's policies to be logical and free of absurdity.

It's only absurd if you try to judge it on the basis of what it publicly claims to be. If you look at it in terms of Wikipolitical power in action, it's evil, but sensible.

As several people have complained about the wording of my original statement, I would like to clarify the circumstances of my self-report. As Risker pointed out earlier, a Checkuser was used to identify me as the source of the sockpuppet account. Once it was clear that I had been associated with the account, I decided to out myself and resign my administrator tools. I did not speak with anyone from ArbCom directly prior to posting the statement, although according to Beeblebrox, the ArbCom was already aware of the identity of the account at that time. As there was a good chance that my identity would be publicly revealed at some point, it would be fair to say that I reported the sockpuppet due to being discovered, regardless of the fact that no one had actually threatened to out me. That is my final statement on the issue. Kaldari 21:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Let’s just compare with the original statement then

I would like to report myself for making this edit from a single-purpose account. My motivation was:

To avoid being attacked by Eric's supporters

To avoid people complaining about how I work for the WMF and the WMF is trying to "police Wikipedia". Yes, I'm a software developer for the WMF, but I was made an en.wiki admin 5 years before being hired by the WMF and have been an active member of the en.wiki community for nearly 10 years. My work and principles as a volunteer are separate from my employment at the WMF, but that seems to be a difficult concept for some people to recon with.

Initially, I did not consider this edit sock puppetry as I was not involved in the interactions I was reporting, but simply wanted to report them anonymously. After talking with some other people, I've come to the conclusion that this was an incorrect assessment and my action was a violation of the sock puppetry policy, specifically "avoiding scrutiny".

My, my, my...

So he was headed to ARBCOM anyway when he graciously resigned?
Every minute that passes, Ryan Kaldari née Smith looks worse and worse.

The WMF should probably call him in for a long, detailed meeting with HR and his manager to find out what else he hasn't been truthful about.

I have some information if you guys want it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =598891594

it looks like Kaldari is being piled on unnecessarily. Oh, that's rich! When he is the architect of his own demise. 1) He said the website served it's parody point long ago, right? Yet he continued to keep the site active by paying year after year for the domain name. 2) He says he never looked at the content others posted there. (There seems to be some counter-evidence to that, but assuming it is true for a moment, is it believable? He provided a mechanism for others to post pictures toward his gruesome theme, then never bothered, even out of curiosity, to check on the response? Yeah right. I think that does not stand to reason. I think he's lying. [Is it a shock? From a sock puppet?]) This guy is totally creepy. His word cannot be trusted. His "mocking suicide" false accusation of Eric Corbett is so astoundingly hypocritical, it takes one's breath away even considering how to respond. (This guy is a WMF employee!?!?!?!?! [Jesus Christ!] He's still around, only desysopped? [Jesus Christ!] What will make this creepy thing go into its cave and stay there!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Quite.

The WMF should consider just how much of a liability they are willing to integrate into their reputation.

Vigilant wrote:My, my, my...

So he was headed to ARBCOM anyway when he graciously resigned?
Every minute that passes, Ryan Kaldari née Smith looks worse and worse.

The WMF should probably call him in for a long, detailed meeting with HR and his manager to find out what else he hasn't been truthful about.

I have some information if you guys want it.

It's not about what we want, but what the community deserves to know.

MilesMoney wrote:

Vigilant wrote:My, my, my...

So he was headed to ARBCOM anyway when he graciously resigned?
Every minute that passes, Ryan Kaldari née Smith looks worse and worse.

The WMF should probably call him in for a long, detailed meeting with HR and his manager to find out what else he hasn't been truthful about.

I have some information if you guys want it.

It's not about what we want, but what the community deserves to know.

As long as he is in their midst, they deserve to know what they have.

I know too much already.