Private Manning arbitration

[The Adversary]

Ooooh, brilliant..
Cla: David Gerard still thinks "you're part of the legendary "military football team"" ...or swims in a womans bathing suit!
Quote:

The "outed" user has trolled the arbcom ''hard''. They've taken their revenge on Phil, they've made the arbcom look like craven fools in the public eye, they've used you to damage Wikipedia's public reputation, and they're currently crowing about it on the troll sites (and posting photos of themselves at sports events at their place of employment).

[EricBarbour]

Ain't Gerard incredible? I've seen few other people with so little self-awareness. He can't stop being a little shite, either.

[dogbiscuit]

Ooooh, brilliant..
Cla: David Gerard still thinks "you're part of the legendary "military football team"" ...or swims in a womans bathing suit!
Quote:

The "outed" user has trolled the arbcom ''hard''. They've taken their revenge on Phil, they've made the arbcom look like craven fools in the public eye, they've used you to damage Wikipedia's public reputation, and they're currently crowing about it on the troll sites (and posting photos of themselves at sports events at their place of employment).

David is being his usual deliberately misleading self. If you consider the photos, Cal has posted more than one photograph which at the time he claimed was himself, so the content of the post that is factual is arguably correct, though misleading through omission.

The rest is an opinion piece disguised as a factual statement. To suggest that Cla's complaint was trolling is rather odd in the context of Wikipedia where there are numerous counter-examples that show that Wikipedians consider this sort of behaviour beyond the pale. It is odd to describe as revenge by "us" (made by Cla68 off his own bat) when it was a complaint about what was clearly itself a revenge attack. I don't think that ArbCom have been made to look like fools - it is not foolish to do the obvious and correct thing in the context of the Wikipedia guidance - and the only person who can be considered to have put ArbCom into that position is Phil. I don't see any damage to Wikipedia's public reputation - it is an irrelevant internal dispute to the public - and I haven't seen any crowing here (perhaps one of Dan's posts???) and I am unsure what other "troll sites" could be added to come up with the plural.

So it is a typical DG post, a fantasy analysis based on nothing that his cronies can nod over and confirm their suspicions with.

[Poetlister]

Mr. Gerard would like to give a shout out to the people really pulling the strings.

The difference is, of course, the banning arbitrators hang out on Wikipediocracy - David Gerard (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Roger Davies, AGK, Timotheus Canens, Salvio giuliano, WormThatTurned, Newyorkbrad, SilkTork

Pffft. McCarthy-style exaggeration. Three of those people don't even have accounts here.

For the record, do any of those who did not vote for the ban have accounts here?

[Hex]

Chickenfeed.

Main page: 110 KB
...talk: 403 KB
Evidence: 248 KB
...talk: 108 KB
Workshop: 891 KB
...talk: 250 KB
Proposed decision: 425 KB
...talk: 35 KB

Total: 2.41 MB

I never, ever, ever want to experience anything like that again.

Boy, am I ever bad at math.

(I forgot the Proposed Decision pages and counted the other six a little bit before the actual end...)

Coming back to this thread... you know that I was talking about a different arbitration there, right? Date delinking, in 2009. It was twice as big and four times as stupid as the recent one.

[DanMurphy]

Do these people actually believe that the Pentagon has an interest in whether Wikipedia refers to Manning as "Chelsea" or "Bradley?" That all military personnel (uniformed and civilian) think alike?

I mean, look at this:

If you work for a small company, editing for your company's interest is forbdden, but if you work for a very large organization, it's quite okay? I don't get that argument. There is a colorable argument to be made that DoD employees ought to disclose that fact before intervening in the Chelsea Manning dispute. I think it is in bounds for Phil to point that out (though I may disagree with him). We don't authorize research into editor's employment. But we also don't regulate what people do on other sites. I think it's a big mistake for ArbCom to have banned somebody because of something they wrote elsewhere. What did Phil do with his Wikipedia account? Where's the diff or log entry showing him abusing his access? Jehochman Talk 15:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This kind of thinking is quite simply crazy.

[Vigilant]

Bullshit. You are protecting a stalker. Morwen (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You poor, poor little thing.

You have no idea what stalking is, you delicate little snowflake.
You cheapen everyone else who has had to endure actual stalking.
When people show up at your work, when pictures are taken through your windows, when pictures of your kids are sent to your house...that's stalking.

By your definition, Phil Sandifer is a creepy stalker.

It reminds me of the nauseatingly whiny shit you guys were pulling with "misnaming is violence" in the Manning case.

I've got a good mind to show you exactly what real stalking actually looks like.

You can be my winter LittleGreenRosetta.

[dogbiscuit]

This kind of thinking is quite simply crazy.

If you immerse yourself in the logic of Wikipedia, which ignores the body of thought that has gone before it in the real world, then these sorts of announcements can be the result of a rational thought process. It's the same process that allows Jimbo to make stuff up while believing himself to be speaking honestly.

Wikipedia is founded on many irrational and contradictory principles (e.g. if Wikipedians believe in anonymity being sacred, how can they contemplate rules on people revealing their conflicts of interest - wouldn't the disinfectant of the many crowdsourced eyes be able to deal with the problems) so it is not surprising that people come up with irrational and contradictory pronouncements.

[Vigilant]

Finally, a spark of sanity on that page.

Of course Wikipedia "got played" ...Sandifier coalesced sufficient information to violate outing (full name, location and employer), drew a line in the sand, and refused to simply edit the post when contacted by the committee, knowing full well the committee would pretty much have to at a minimum desysop. They obviously weren't using their wiki credentials to contribute to the encylopedia so it doesn't matter to them, and now they can use the desysop / banning as further evidence of how anti-trans Wikipedia is. NE Ent 12:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

[TungstenCarbide]

Finally, a spark of sanity on that page.

Of course Wikipedia "got played" ...Sandifier coalesced sufficient information to violate outing (full name, location and employer), drew a line in the sand, and refused to simply edit the post when contacted by the committee, knowing full well the committee would pretty much have to at a minimum desysop. They obviously weren't using their wiki credentials to contribute to the encylopedia so it doesn't matter to them, and now they can use the desysop / banning as further evidence of how anti-trans Wikipedia is. NE Ent 12:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yup, Sandifer manufactured a point of contention to hang his exit and self-righteous blather on.

[TungstenCarbide]

As I expected, he does read us even though he apparently holds us in contempt. Common theme.

Anyway, I have always been careful not to discuss the nature of my work or my organization of employment on the Internet or exactly where I live. I haven't seen the links that Mathsci, Phil, and David Gerard, among others, apparently used to find out where I lived and worked. I would like to know so I can see how they did it.

I read your name a while back, probably on WR -- don't pay much attention to that stuff though so I don't remember the details. With your name out there and other things you've mentioned about your family and general location and work, it's probably not that hard to dig up more. What's really creepy is if anyone started making phone calls. Do you have any reason to think that's the case?

Also, and this is going back years when I was still active at WP, the insiders used to pass around spreadsheets on irc detailing WP 'enemies of the state' - ip addresses, names, locations, sockpuppets, whatever they could find ... this was outside of the checkuser group. It wasn't my cup of tea so I didn't pay much attention, but there is every reason to believe this still goes on.

WP has some real nutcases. The squeal like stuck pigs when one of their own is outed, but for an enemy of the state, and if you know who to suck up to and ask, there is a river of information.

[Vigilant]

As I expected, he does read us even though he apparently holds us in contempt. Common theme.

Anyway, I have always been careful not to discuss the nature of my work or my organization of employment on the Internet or exactly where I live. I haven't seen the links that Mathsci, Phil, and David Gerard, among others, apparently used to find out where I lived and worked. I would like to know so I can see how they did it.

I read your name a while back, probably on WR -- don't pay much attention to that stuff though so I don't remember the details. With your name out there and other things you've mentioned about your family and general location and work, it's probably not that hard to dig up more. What's really creepy is if anyone started making phone calls. Do you have any reason to think that's the case?

Also, and this is going back years when I was still active at WP, the insiders used to pass around spreadsheets on irc detailing WP 'enemies of the state' - ip addresses, names, locations, sockpuppets, whatever they could find ... this was outside of the checkuser group. It wasn't my cup of tea so I didn't pay much attention, but there is every reason to believe this still goes on.

WP has some real nutcases. The squeal like stuck pigs when one of their own is outed, but for an enemy of the state, and if you know who to suck up to and ask, there is a river of information.

Who were/are the enemies of the state?
Do I even garner an honorable mention?

[Vigilant]

Poor Phil Sandifer...



Reminds me of this meme.

[Cla68]

I read your name a while back, probably on WR -- don't pay much attention to that stuff though so I don't remember the details. With your name out there and other things you've mentioned about your family and general location and work, it's probably not that hard to dig up more. What's really creepy is if anyone started making phone calls. Do you have any reason to think that's the case?

I finally saw the link to a community newsletter which shows me participating in a triathlon at a certain installation in Japan. But, it doesn't say that I live or work there. So, how did Mathsci, David Gerard, and Phil Sandifer discover the name of my organization or the actual community of my residence? They must have done some additional digging. Also, the newsletter is from 2011. How would they know that I haven't moved during that time? I haven't heard of any phone calls or anything, but I'd like to know how they found out my personal information. It's eerie.

[The Devil's Advocate]

Bullshit. You are protecting a stalker. Morwen (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You poor, poor little thing.

You have no idea what stalking is, you delicate little snowflake.
You cheapen everyone else who has had to endure actual stalking.
When people show up at your work, when pictures are taken through your windows, when pictures of your kids are sent to your house...that's stalking.

By your definition, Phil Sandifer is a creepy stalker.

It reminds me of the nauseatingly whiny shit you guys were pulling with "misnaming is violence" in the Manning case.

I've got a good mind to show you exactly what real stalking actually looks like.

You can be my winter LittleGreenRosetta.

Of course, even though Morwen has called Cla68 a stalker three or four times during that discussion, none of the Arbs seem to be paying it much mind. Normally, plainly calling someone a "stalker" on Wikipedia is not permitted, especially for such absurd reasons. Even using the word "stalker" when discussing someone's conduct tends to lead to threats of preventishment for lesser editors, yet Morwen is not getting so much as a "tone it down" remark from the Arbs, despite repeatedly and explicitly accusing someone of stalking over something as idiotic as reading a public Twitter feed linked to from Morwen's own user page.

[Zoloft]

Mr. Gerard would like to give a shout out to the people really pulling the strings.

The difference is, of course, the banning arbitrators hang out on Wikipediocracy - David Gerard (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Roger Davies, AGK, Timotheus Canens, Salvio giuliano, WormThatTurned, Newyorkbrad, SilkTork

Pffft. McCarthy-style exaggeration. Three of those people don't even have accounts here.

For the record, do any of those who did not vote for the ban have accounts here?

Only one that I can tell. Inactive for months, never posted.

[Newyorkbrad]

I've got a good mind to show you exactly what real stalking actually looks like.

You can be my winter LittleGreenRosetta.

This threat is shockingly inappropriate.

[Mancunium]

I've got a good mind to show you exactly what real stalking actually looks like.

You can be my winter LittleGreenRosetta.

This threat is shockingly inappropriate.

Allow me to believe that your comment is as obviously rhetorical as Vigilant's.

[Zoloft]

I've got a good mind to show you exactly what real stalking actually looks like.

You can be my winter LittleGreenRosetta.

This threat is shockingly inappropriate.

Allow me to believe that your comment is as obviously rhetorical as Vigilant's.

Obviously not a threat, just shock tactics. Vigilant is our fall Howard Stern.

If you really thought it a threat, you would have emailed our support email: support at wikipediocracy dot com

If I thought it a threat, I would have taken it down and muted Vigilant for a week or more.

If Morwen thought it a threat, I'm sure there would have been wailing and gnashing of teeth, etc.

Instead...

[Newyorkbrad]

Obviously not a threat, just shock tactics. Vigilant is our fall Howard Stern.

If you really thought it a threat, you would have emailed our support email: support at wikipediocracy dot com

If I thought it a threat, I would have taken it down and muted Vigilant for a week or more.

If Morwen thought it a threat, I'm sure there would have been wailing and gnashing of teeth, etc.

I did not take Vigilant's post as referring to any sort of physical threat, but I did think he was musing about subjecting the person he was discussing to some form of persistent and unwanted online activity, at a time when, rightly or wrongly, she already feels aggrieved. If my comment has evoked a clarification that nothing of that sort was intended, then it has served its purpose.

[Randy from Boise]

Obviously not a threat, just shock tactics. Vigilant is our fall Howard Stern.

If you really thought it a threat, you would have emailed our support email: support at wikipediocracy dot com

If I thought it a threat, I would have taken it down and muted Vigilant for a week or more.

If Morwen thought it a threat, I'm sure there would have been wailing and gnashing of teeth, etc.

I did not take Vigilant's post as referring to any sort of physical threat, but I did think he was musing about subjecting the person he was discussing to some form of persistent and unwanted online activity, at a time when, rightly or wrongly, she already feels aggrieved. If my comment has evoked a clarification that nothing of that sort was intended, then it has served its purpose.

I'm inclined to give Brad the "inappropriate" but not the "shockingly."

Hyperbole met with hyperbole...

RfB

[tarantino]

I did not take Vigilant's post as referring to any sort of physical threat, but I did think he was musing about subjecting the person he was discussing to some form of persistent and unwanted online activity, at a time when, rightly or wrongly, she already feels aggrieved. If my comment has evoked a clarification that nothing of that sort was intended, then it has served its purpose.

Feel free to turn this red link, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vigilant, blue.

[TungstenCarbide]

Who were/are the enemies of the state?

Anyone who engaged in vandalism, or critical review of the project.

Do I even garner an honorable mention?

I got fed up and shed WP insiders years ago, so I don't know for sure. However, it's a good bet that people are working on your 'honorable mention'.

[dogbiscuit]

Gerard opines:

This is pretty clearly an abuse of oversight powers

[Vigilant]

I've got a good mind to show you exactly what real stalking actually looks like.

You can be my winter LittleGreenRosetta.

This threat is shockingly inappropriate.

Is Morwen repeatedly calling people stalkers ON WIKIPEDIA less shockingly inappropriate?
Are David Gerard's continuous attempts to minimize Sandifer's obvious and admitted sins less shocking than my comment?

Clean up your own house, you hypocrite, before piously opining on others' faults.

P.S. Hey Brad, you're starting to sound like Jimmy Wales. Are you going to ask us to be "thoughtful" next?

[Vigilant]

Obviously not a threat, just shock tactics. Vigilant is our fall Howard Stern.

If you really thought it a threat, you would have emailed our support email: support at wikipediocracy dot com

If I thought it a threat, I would have taken it down and muted Vigilant for a week or more.

If Morwen thought it a threat, I'm sure there would have been wailing and gnashing of teeth, etc.

I did not take Vigilant's post as referring to any sort of physical threat, but I did think he was musing about subjecting the person he was discussing to some form of persistent and unwanted online activity, at a time when, rightly or wrongly, she already feels aggrieved. If my comment has evoked a clarification that nothing of that sort was intended, then it has served its purpose.

Why would I care if she feels aggrieved?

If she's such a delicate snowflake, then why is she stoking the fires on the Sandifer ARBCOM page calling everyone stalkers?

If she doesn't want to "feel aggrieved" then she should stop shitting on people.
She really should consider the Qworty and LGR cases when she starts spewing crap at people I respect.

[DanMurphy]

Yo, Ira: Stop the constant references on Wikipedia to all members of this site as practitioners of "hate speech." Until then, stuff the sanctimony. This is not Wikipedia. We are grownups here, and we recognize the difference between exaggerated rhetoric for effect and actual unethical behavior.

[Vigilant]

And before anyone gets the wind up their skirts, this is not me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... s_fun_haha

But I'm not surprised that this is happening nor would I expect it to stop given the obvious hypocrisy on that page.

[lilburne]

Yo, Ira: Stop the constant references on Wikipedia to all members of this site as practitioners of "hate speech." Until then, stuff the sanctimony. This is not Wikipedia. We are grownups here, and we recognize the difference between exaggerated rhetoric for effect and actual unethical behavior.

Why should we give a fuck about the shitheads over there mmm? They want to pontificate about this and that, victimize minor individuals, bully fellow participants on their pissant site. As was said following the Jim Hawkins crap they perpetuated the other year, screw them all. If they are too chickenshit to stand up when their real life ID gets exposed then they shouldn't be playing the game.

Let em go read a book, or get a kitten to play with.

[EricBarbour]

I've got a good mind to show you exactly what real stalking actually looks like.

You can be my winter LittleGreenRosetta.

This threat is shockingly inappropriate.

[Vigilant]

Nice to see Ashley van Haeften trying to get back in the saddle again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_ ... estriction

Always classy as he piggybacks onto another hot dispute to try to worm his way back into the fold.

Dearest Ashley, I still have reams of stuff about you.
If you return in any great capacity, I will email the arbs with evidence of the several undeclared accounts you've operated and ask that you be banned for serial violations of your case.

[Mancunium]

Nice to see Ashley van Haeften trying to get back in the saddle again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_ ... estriction

Always classy as he piggybacks onto another hot dispute to try to worm his way back into the fold.

Dearest Ashley, I still have reams of stuff about you.
If you return in any great capacity, I will email the arbs with evidence of the several undeclared accounts you've operated and ask that you be banned for serial violations of your case.

At the beginning of this year Arbcom accepted my appeal but left me with a restriction against "images relating to sexuality, broadly construed". Due to my past stressful experience of being harassed over a period of years, I have been retired as a Wikipedian for the last four months, and focused my volunteer time on Wikimedia Commons, however I have a long running interest in LGBT archives and am considering a project I may get involved with in 2014 that may help English Wikipedia content and could support the case for future funding of an academic placement of a Wikipedian in Residence. The current generic restriction would probably mean that I would have to give up on the idea, so hopefully the intent of "sexuality, broadly construed" can be clarified as intended to mean images with nudity or something similar, rather than remaining so broad as to include LGBT and historical LGBT images of any kind (for example my thousands of uploads of Gay Pride photographs from around the world).

Destroying my ability to contribute to the Wikimedia mission using my continued independent interests in LGBT archives, may have been an unintended consequence here, and I would appreciate some advice on how to get a clarification.

Hopefully this can happen in a respectful way, in the light of still considering myself retired from editing articles, rather than causing me unnecessary stress. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Fæ, speaking personally, I wouldn't see a problem with that. The correct place to ask for a clarification is at the amendments and clarifications page. Depending on the timing of when in 2014 you intend to get involved in this project, you may wish to wait until January when new arbitrators have been elected, or you may wish to ask now if you want clarification sooner. Carcharoth (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Considering that homosexuality is illegal in 52 countries, and that LGBT people are subject to discrimination, harassment and bullying, has van Haeften received permission from the tens of thousands of identifiable individuals in his "thousands of uploads of Gay Pride photographs from around the world"? For instance, a visitor from Uganda photographed at London Pride who returns home to find the photo has been broadcast to the world? My guess is that Fae doesn't give a damn about the gay people he so prolifically outs.

Commons:Photographs of identifiable people link

[Cla68]

As far as I'm concerned, the problem here was WP admins trying to use WP to pursue a socio-politico agenda. I have no problem with Pvt Manning deciding to be a woman. I have no problem with him choosing Chelsea as his name. I DO have a problem with WP insiders, including MS Gardner, getting a pass on using WP to play a side in the debate. WP is supposed to be neutral. That's the problem. Phil, David Gerard, Morwen, please remember that you will have more credibility for your cause if you are honest and upright in your actions.

Unlike what Phil said in his blog, I never said that transgender people should not edit transgender topics. I also never outed someone like he and David Gerard did to me. Saying I did so is histrionics. If you want to be a credible witness for your cause, then you need to be honest about what you are saying. Reason and accountability actually matter to most people who matter, as you are currently discovering. Histrionics will not win the debate.

[EricBarbour]

As far as I'm concerned, the problem here was WP admins trying to use WP to pursue a socio-politico agenda. I have no problem with Pvt Manning deciding to be a woman. I have no problem with him choosing Chelsea as his name. I DO have a problem with WP insiders, including MS Gardner, getting a pass on using WP to play a side in the debate. WP is supposed to be neutral. That's the problem. Phil, David Gerard, Morwen, please remember that you will have more credibility for your cause if you are honest and upright in your actions.

Unlike what Phil said in his blog, I never said that transgender people should not edit transgender topics. I also never outed someone like he and David Gerard did to me. Saying I did so is histrionics. If you want to be a credible witness for your cause, then you need to be honest about what you are saying. Reason and accountability actually matter to most people who matter, as you are currently discovering. Histrionics will not win the debate.

Wasting your time. They will ram histrionics down all our throats, because they want the "lulz". This is their television sitcom.

[Vigilant]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =580975642

At what point will the rules about proxying for a banned user be brought into play?

You've had your little melodrama. There's no way the ARBCOM can back up out of this without getting into a straight "1984 some animals are more equal than others" situation.

He's done. Stick a fork in him.

[TungstenCarbide]

Jesus there are some vindictive nutcases at Wikipedia. http://charlesainsworthiscla68.blogspot ... pedia.html

Anyone here actually choose to read this all the way to the end?
http://www.philipsandifer.com/2013/11/f ... nning.html

Boy oh boy he's really whooping it up! http://www.philipsandifer.com/2013/11/t ... ou-to.html

I got a PhD in English, focusing on film and media studies, in the summer of 2010. Due to an acute lack of full-time jobs available for someone with a PhD in English I ended up working only part time and spending a lot of time on various writing projects. The most successful of these was TARDIS Eruditorum, an ongoing critical history of Doctor Who.

[Triptych]

Jesus there are some vindictive nutcases at Wikipedia. [Blogspot link clipped]

Anyone here actually choose to read this all the way to the end? http://www.philipsandifer.com/2013/11/f ... nning.html

"Ben Williams" is not a real name is it? It gives it a deceptive quality to post under a fictitious name. Obvious handles (like "TungstenCarbide" or "Triptych") are different in my view. There are those on Wikipedia who operate under fictitious names, like "JamesBWatson" and "Bwilkins" and, perhaps, "Dennis Brown," and I've always scratched my head at it.

How dare this Sandifer guy call AGK the Policy Theorist a "banal twerp of minimal broader interest?!" I did basically read it all. The amount of verbiage means, despite having by his statement basically retired as an editor anyway, that he's nonetheless upset at being banned. He's irked that that some arbs like to portray their personal and non-collectively-agreed emails royally as "for the Arbitration Committee." He's annoyed that they never have their facts straight. He's perturbed that they've stealthily locked his talkpage, which is not a penalty stated in his arbitration case. Etc.

What struck me in this case is that Arbcom reached out and grabbed off-Wikipedia activity to create its own case, I think for the first time. Previously there had to be some particular on-wiki transgression and they would go to the off-wiki stuff as an informing factor. But here the "violation" occurs entirely off-wiki. There's absolutely no policy to support this. They emphasized the point by demanding Sandifer remove the content from his well-trafficked blog. Arbcom thus has attempted to control off-wiki activity by holding an editor's account hostage. Further on this point, they did this by private email, so non-transparently. Perhaps they have done this to others, dictated off-wiki behavior and redaction and so forth, but it has not come to light because the others were effectively coereced.

[lilburne]

I got a PhD in English, focusing on film and media studies, in the summer of 2010. Due to an acute lack of full-time jobs available for someone with a PhD in English I ended up working only part time and spending a lot of time on various writing projects. The most successful of these was TARDIS Eruditorum, an ongoing critical history of Doctor Who.

Yeah well why would any one employ a PhD English grad? After all wikipedia has shown that such qualifications aren't need to either write content, or summarize reviews of English works. Gerard says that WP is a disruptive technology, it appears to have disrupted Sandifer's career path.

[CoffeeCrumbs]

My favorite part of this whole brouhaha? The deluded belief of some that this whole Manning rename/arbitration case/Gorand-Sandifer sanctions situation is a scandal of major proportions that the public is highly interested in following. Gerard, Morwen, and Sandifer have this notion that they've managed to whip up some kind of media frenzy because they aggressively reached out to their friends in the blogosphere and got a couple extremely minor articles about it that the world at large completely ignored. Now, after the banning -- something I feel was the intentional goal of Sandifer's actions -- Sandifer seems to have this idea that he's the 21st century Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, rather than a ideology-driven maniac whose celebrity is limited to about 80 people in the world, all Wikipedia editors.

[dogbiscuit]

RfB is making a simple and sensible observation. If we tease it out a little, it comes down to the point that Wikipedia as an encyclopedia should not be an advocate for change. It can inform of the issues, but it should not be the arbiter of what is right and wrong thinking.

Following on from that, it is perfectly reasonable to point out that arguing for naming conventions based on a subset of beliefs of the rights and wrongs of how to handle gender re-assignment is to a certain extent political advocacy. Remember that in the UK it was less than a decade ago that the law was changed to allow birth certificates to be reissued with a re-assigned gender. So to piously pronounce that the treatment of these thorny issues are obvious and settled is inappropriate.

As has been mentioned already, although there are activists interested in these issues, the vast majority of the world has no (knowing) contact or interest with trans-gender issues, and as something outside of their experience are bound to be uncomfortable and probably reactionary about it. It is a fair bet that the Islamic world, which struggles with simple feminism, would be goggle-eyed at the passion this is being argued with, and the vast majority of day to day Westerners would tend to be at best in the "so what? It doesn't affect me" camp with a fair smattering of "Urgh! I'd rather not think about it" thrown in.

So I would say that if Wikipedia wants to be truly neutral, then it has to follow legal convention. That is not as simple as it sounds, in that if we think of an example like Elton John then that is a legal identity as much as Reg Dwight. With re-directs, it could be the case that a hard rule could be introduced of birth certificate name with redirects for legal or well known aliases. However, I don't think that Wikipedia can allow itself the indulgence of changing how it is compiled on the basis of some press interview pronouncement.

[Captain Occam]

Sorry to bump an old thread, but I just came across the bizarre blogspot account in question while doing a Google search. When searching for Cla68 plus Wikipediocracy, this blog is on the near the top of the second page of results.

Is the consensus here that Phil Sandifer was the person responsible for this account? When I see harassment that's this blatant, I care about knowing who's behind it.

[tarantino]

Sorry to bump an old thread, but I just came across the bizarre blogspot account in question while doing a Google search. When searching for Cla68 plus Wikipediocracy, this blog is on the near the top of the second page of results.

Is the consensus here that Phil Sandifer was the person responsible for this account? When I see harassment that's this blatant, I care about knowing who's behind it.

More than likely, it's Phil. An image search for the profile pic of "Ben Williams" points to philipsandifer.com.

[Captain Occam]

There's something I've been wanting to ask about this, and I'd like to have the opinion of the other people here in general, not just Cla68. If I'm referring to Cla68 outside of Wikipedia, is his real name common-enough knowledge at this point that it's okay for me to use it? In addition to the various people who've outed him, his name was also mentioned in articles like this one and this one, presumably with his consent.

I'm asking because I'm working on writing a blog post for another website that refers to Cla68's blog post "How to control a topic". When I write this post I'd prefer to mention Cla68 by his real name, but only if other people won't view my doing that as malicious.

[Hersch]

Sorry to bump an old thread, but I just came across the bizarre blogspot account in question while doing a Google search. When searching for Cla68 plus Wikipediocracy, this blog is on the near the top of the second page of results.

Is the consensus here that Phil Sandifer was the person responsible for this account? When I see harassment that's this blatant, I care about knowing who's behind it.

I can't think of Phil Sandifer without remembering this classic WR thread.

[Notvelty]

There's something I've been wanting to ask about this, and I'd like to have the opinion of the other people here in general, not just Cla68. If I'm referring to Cla68 outside of Wikipedia, is his real name common-enough knowledge at this point that it's okay for me to use it? In addition to the various people who've outed him, his name was also mentioned in articles like this one and this one, presumably with his consent.

Charles Ainsworth is his name. There is nothing at all wrong with referring to an adult living in a democracy by their name. Claims to the contrary aren't just wrong, they are insane.

Of course, it might be rude to do so. Doing something that someone has asked you not to do might be considered impolite. There is a difference between "rude" and "wrong" though.

I'm asking because I'm working on writing a blog post for another website that refers to Cla68's blog post "How to control a topic". When I write this post I'd prefer to mention Cla68 by his real name, but only if other people won't view my doing that as malicious.

I suspect what Charles might object to (quite correctly) is if you were to identify where he lives and works, if he has not done so himself. This is personal information.

[Midsize Jake]

...I'm working on writing a blog post for another website that refers to Cla68's blog post "How to control a topic". When I write this post I'd prefer to mention Cla68 by his real name, but only if other people won't view my doing that as malicious.

It would depend on the nature of the website you're writing for, wouldn't it? The problem with exposure of real names, for normal people at least, is having your real name show up in search engine results in the context of something that might compromise your ability to get a job, a domicile, a loan, or even a date. (Among other things!)

Mr. Cla68 is probably just now getting ready for lunch over there (AFAIK), so he could probably tell you himself, but I suspect he wouldn't mind if it's a reputable website that doesn't exist to advocate some sort of extreme or wacko ideology or whatever. (Of course, if you wanted to be nice, you'd let him decide that personally.)

[Captain Occam]

I suspect what Charles might object to (quite correctly) is if you were to identify where he lives and works, if he has not done so himself. This is personal information.

Why in the world would I include something like that? I would just be saying something along the lines of, "this is a blog post by Charles Ainsworth".

[Notvelty]

I suspect what Charles might object to (quite correctly) is if you were to identify where he lives and works, if he has not done so himself. This is personal information.

Why in the world would I include something like that? I would just be saying something along the lines of, "this is a blog post by Charles Ainsworth".

I don't know. There's no accounting for some.

(I was drawing a distinction between naming someone and doing, for example, something like Phil Sandifer did in the linked blog earlier.)

[cyofee]

Sorry to bump an old thread, but I just came across the bizarre blogspot account in question while doing a Google search. When searching for Cla68 plus Wikipediocracy, this blog is on the near the top of the second page of results.

Is the consensus here that Phil Sandifer was the person responsible for this account? When I see harassment that's this blatant, I care about knowing who's behind it.

I can't think of Phil Sandifer without remembering this classic WR thread.

I expected the link to lead to this one.

[Captain Occam]

Based on the responses I've gotten here, I'm assuming it is okay for me to credit Cla68 for that blog post by his real name. Cla68, please let me know if you disagree with that.