What's in a Name? Tenebrae & Peppermint

[Smiley]

A new blogpost produced in cooperation with the Daily Dot:

"What's in a Name?"
Wikipediocracy

"Is this Wikipedia editor who deadnamed a trans celebrity a high-profile film critic? The curious case of Tenebrae."
Daily Dot

[Moral Hazard]

The writers and editors really excelled with this, and I am very proud that they worked with a reporter to ensure the widest distribution of this story, and also providing independent verification of the reporting.



Well done!

[Smiley]

The Daily Dot is still a "reliable source", right?

Tenebrae, let's imagine you had a biography here. Now how would you feel about your dating history, every dealing with the courts, and all your mental health issues being laid out for all to see as the top google result? --Hillbillyholiday (T-C-L) 18:49, 30 August 2017

I'm a public figure — not a celebrity by any stretch of the imagination whatsoever, but still a public figure, which is one reason for not using my real name — and I have no feelings about anything accurate, pertinent and neutral on the Wikipedia article or indeed any published article about me. If I were convicted of a crime, damn straight I would expect it to be in my Wikipedia article — presented simply and neutrally. Otherwise I would be the most self-centered, unprofessional journalist imaginable. I have a journalist-author friend who is a higher-profile public figure and who was hit with child pornography charges; he's pleaded not guilty and he isn't even advocating to have the arrest removed from his Wikipedia article. So to answer your question: That' is how I would feel. --Tenebrae (T-C-L) 19:02, 30 August 2017

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =798056955

[Bezdomni]

The Daily · is cited (§) nine times more frequently than my local metropolitan newspaper. As far as starting another no-go list discussion at RS:N goes, I suppose a lot would depend on whether Commercial Hack was as infinitely banished as Cloven Freak...

[Beeblebrox]

Can't you guys just be wrong about this stuff?
Have a little sympathy for the already overworked and underpaid functionaries and arbs? (yeah, I know that's a long shot)

[Giraffe Stapler]

According to his frequently updated user page, Tenebrae is the 327th most active Wikipedia editor. This is going to be bad.

[AndyTheGrump]

If the Peppermint thing was an isolated incident, it might just be arguable that the WO blog isn't justified. It isn't an isolated incident though. Even ignoring the self-promotion, Tenebrae/Lovece has a long history of using his professional 'credentials' as a weapon in his frequent tussles over biographical content concerning celebrities. He'll tell all and sundry that he's a professional journalist, but when asked to back that up with evidence, refuse to do so. At which point, someone or other (Lovace or one of his pals) will start citing Wikipedia's anti-doxxing policies. See in particular the ridiculous saga over the Demi Moore (T-H-L), where Lovece was basically insisting that Moore couldn't possibly be a 'reliable source' for what her own real name was, but that 'reporting in RS' would be. Despite the obvious fact that 'RS' sources didn't actually agree on the matter.

I've seen it suggested elsewhere that Lovece had some sort of personal animosity toward Moore. And while I've not actually seen any evidence for this, it certainly wouldn't surprise me. While Lovece can be pigheaded about all sorts of minor trivia, the amount of effort he put into arguing over that particular bit of minor detail seems difficult to explain otherwise.

[iii]

Kudos. This is indeed what Wikipediocracy should be for.

I imagine much will be consumed while the Wikipediots decide what to do about all this.

[AndyTheGrump]

Can't you guys just be wrong about this stuff?
Have a little sympathy for the already overworked and underpaid functionaries and arbs? (yeah, I know that's a long shot)

Save yourselves a lot of time. Contact Tenebrae privately, asking that since he has repeatedly disclosed on Wikipedia that he is a professional journalist, and since he has also disclosed that he has a Wikipedia biography, that he tell ArbCom, in confidence, who he is. If Tenebrae isn't Lovece, it should be easy enough to verify by then contacting said other journalist independently to confirm it.

[Jim]

The writers and editors really excelled with this, and I am very proud that they worked with a reporter to ensure the widest distribution of this story, and also providing independent verification of the reporting.



Well done!

Well, that's just about everything I was going to say, so,

[Poetlister]

Can't you guys just be wrong about this stuff?
Have a little sympathy for the already overworked and underpaid functionaries and arbs? (yeah, I know that's a long shot)

Save yourselves a lot of time. Contact Tenebrae privately, asking that since he has repeatedly disclosed on Wikipedia that he is a professional journalist, and since he has also disclosed that he has a Wikipedia biography, that he tell ArbCom, in confidence, who he is. If Tenebrae isn't Lovece, it should be easy enough to verify by then contacting said other journalist independently to confirm it.

That sounds very sensible. But why should the Arbs care unless something is brought to them as a case to consider? And they might worry that it sets some sort of precedent.

[Beeblebrox]

I think it would be fairly unprecedented to ask an editor to confirm their real life identity, even in confidence, and there is no way to compel them to do so. It seems like an open secret on-wiki at this point anyway. Normally I really wouldn't care for outing an editor, but I have to concede that this appears to have identified a very real COI issue. The deadnaming thing is something the community can resolve on its own, but the Tenebrae issue may have to be addressed by the committee, given the tension here between the outing policy and the conflict of interest policy.

[Giraffe Stapler]

It seems like an open secret on-wiki at this point anyway.

If it's an "open secret" why did no one do anything about for, let's see... over 15 years? It's not like people haven't called him on it. He dodged COI accusations in January and the ANI discussion got closed without the COI being addressed.

There are two problems here: Tenebrae's conflict of interest editing and the actions of admins who covered it up by revdelling legitimate COI reports because of "outing" concerns.

[The Garbage Scow]

Good post and I like that it's a shared effort with another publication. I'd love to see more of that!

[Anroth]

Added Frank Lovece to my watchlist and getting the popcorn. This should be fun. I predict something along the lines of the following:

Someone adds section sourced to daily dot
Tenebrae removes it citing outing
They get reverted using the basis the daily dot is a reliable source, and accordingly Tenebrae has a conflict of interest.
Other shit happens
Tenebrae ends up blocked and/or banned/topic banned from biographies.

-edit- If anyone wants to read the original BLPN discussion btw its here.

[GorillaWarfare]

The deadnaming issue on Wikipedia is a major one, and as the article acknowledges we've made some progress but not enough. The name shouldn't have been in Peppermint's bio to begin with, much less allowed to remain, particularly because it was based on shaky sources. Some people at the RfC were arguing it should've been included based on archived sources that had been taken offline or where the deadname had been removed at her request, which was appalling.

I'm the "Wikipedia arbitrator" (former, but close enough I guess) who asked not to be associated with the piece. While I'm at least relieved that they respected that, I'm pretty miffed that they went on to imply that I was a hypocrite for respecting the outing policy. They failed to mention that I argued for her deadname to be removed, or that I'm the editor who began the RfC that ended in that result. They also didn't mention that the tweet they quoted was made specifically after I contacted her asking whether she wished for the name to be removed, nor did they mention the fact that the name hasn't been in the article for nearly a year.

It's also a little bizarre that they referred to me as "it"... Weird grammatical error missed in editing I guess?

I'm quite unclear as to why they referred to me as the "Wikipedia arbitrator who oversaw the Tenebrae drama". I have no memory of any arbitration involving Tenebrae, and from that wording you'd think I drafted a case on them or something. It doesn't look like there were any cases on them post-2008, far before my time on the Committee. The editor said in their email to me that "Wikipediocracy tells me you were involved with some discussions around Tenebrae", but I haven't seen any discussions here mentioning that either. I told them I had no idea what they were referring to, but they saw fit to include it anyway apparently. Does anyone here know what on earth they're talking about, or which Wikipediocracy thread they mean? My memory's bad but I didn't think it was that bad.

[watis]

I'm pretty miffed that they went on to imply that I was a hypocrite for respecting the outing policy. They failed to mention that I argued for her deadname to be removed, or that I'm the editor who began the RfC that ended in that result. They also didn't mention that the tweet they quoted was made specifically after I contacted her asking whether she wished for the name to be removed, nor did they mention the fact that the name hasn't been in the article for nearly a year.

Yeah, that's a bit shady on their part. Not the shadiest depths journalism gets to, but it's certainly an additional dimension on the story.

On the broader level: yeah, this is going to be interesting. I'm theoretically sympathetic to Tenebrae/Lovece's desire for his own privacy, but it's a hell of a move to edit your own BLP into exactly the shape you want while taking the hardline "everything short of outright defamation" perspective for other people, ain't it?

[Beeblebrox]

If it's an "open secret" why did no one do anything about for, let's see... over 15 years? It's not like people haven't called him on it. He dodged COI accusations in January and the ANI discussion got closed without the COI being addressed.

There are two problems here: Tenebrae's conflict of interest editing and the actions of admins who covered it up by revdelling legitimate COI reports because of "outing" concerns.

Note that I said "at this point" meaning the point we are at now, thanks to WO+DailyDot publishing on it. I wasn't personally aware of the COI issue until I read this thing earlier today.

[Smiley]

When reached for comment, a Wikipedia arbitrator who oversaw the Tenebrae drama pointed the Daily Dot toward Wikipedia’s policy against outing editors, saying it doesn't want to be associated with this report.

I'm pretty miffed that they went on to imply that I was a hypocrite for respecting the outing policy.

There is only one sentence about you. I'm just not seeing how it implies you are a hypocrite.

I'm quite unclear as to why they referred to me as the "Wikipedia arbitrator who oversaw the Tenebrae drama". I have no memory of any arbitration involving Tenebrae...

Yes, "oversaw" probably isn't quite the right word. I actually told the editor you were "involved in the discussions", which is true. In the RfC and other discussions about using Peppermint's birth name you repeatedly argued against Tenebrae.

"Wikipediocracy tells me you were involved with some discussions around Tenebrae", but I haven't seen any discussions here mentioning that either. I told them I had no idea what they were referring to, but they saw fit to include it anyway apparently. Does anyone here know what on earth they're talking about, or which Wikipediocracy thread they mean?

You're being obtuse. They didn't say discussions on Wikipediocracy, did they?

Ultimately, the piece needn't have mentioned you at all. I'll ask them to change "oversaw" and "it", or if you'd prefer, I can request they strike the sentence entirely.

But just so we're clear, did you know or suspect that Tenebrae was Lovece?

[Midsize Jake]

I'm the "Wikipedia arbitrator" (former, but close enough I guess) who asked not to be associated with the piece. While I'm at least relieved that they respected that, I'm pretty miffed that they went on to imply that I was a hypocrite for respecting the outing policy. They failed to mention that I argued for her deadname to be removed, or that I'm the editor who began the RfC that ended in that result. They also didn't mention that the tweet they quoted was made specifically after I contacted her asking whether she wished for the name to be removed, nor did they mention the fact that the name hasn't been in the article for nearly a year.

It's also a little bizarre that they referred to me as "it"... Weird grammatical error missed in editing I guess?

I'd have to assume the "it" refers to Wikipedia in general, as if you were in a position to say that the entire website doesn't want to be associated with the article. And as for why they picked you, my guess would be that you were simply more of a "known quantity" than the other Arbitrators — I know it's 2021 now and all, but the people who run news sites still prefer to talk to people whose real names are known.

They probably should have mentioned the other stuff, though. Hopefully Mr. Smiley can help with that.

Does anyone here know what on earth they're talking about, or which Wikipediocracy thread they mean? My memory's bad but I didn't think it was that bad.

Like Mr. Smiley says, they don't necessarily mean a Wikipediocracy thread, and indeed I'm not seeing anything that you posted here about Tenebrae or that even mentions you in that context. That includes the so-called "secret" Moderators-only and Trustees-only forums, FWIW. (I say "so-called" because every forum on the internet has such things.)

That isn't to say we haven't had our eye on Mr. Tenebrae for a while, though. Mr. Tarantino mentioned him as an "autobiographer" back in 2017, and in the aforementioned secret forums, Tenebrae came to our attention back in 2013 when he insisted on keeping a full-length (i.e., much sexier) photo of Amanda Bynes (T-H-L) in her article, rather than a "cropped" (torso/head only) version, and a few months later, reverted someone who was trying to remove the name of the psychiatric hospital she'd been in, justifiably (IMO) claiming it was an invasion of her privacy. We considered doing a blog post on him then, but at that time he had less of a reputation for that sort of privacy-disrespecting behavior; there was also less evidence available on WP that he was Lovece, and of course our blog was also much more active, not to mention more focused on general topics related to systemic flaws and what-not. (At least, that's our excuse.)

[GorillaWarfare]

When reached for comment, a Wikipedia arbitrator who oversaw the Tenebrae drama pointed the Daily Dot toward Wikipedia’s policy against outing editors, saying it doesn't want to be associated with this report.

I'm pretty miffed that they went on to imply that I was a hypocrite for respecting the outing policy.

There is only one sentence about you. I'm just not seeing how it implies you are a hypocrite.

The full quote very much reads like that to me:

When reached for comment, a Wikipedia arbitrator who oversaw the Tenebrae drama pointed the Daily Dot toward Wikipedia’s policy against outing editors, saying it doesn't want to be associated with this report.

To users aware of Tenebrae’s editing history, however, it seems obvious.

The website allows users to defame, denigrate, and distort the lives of its subjects without repercussion, but to "out" an account is a cardinal sin. Wikipedians cherish their cloaks of anonymity, and Tenebrae is no exception.

I'm quite unclear as to why they referred to me as the "Wikipedia arbitrator who oversaw the Tenebrae drama". I have no memory of any arbitration involving Tenebrae...

Yes, "oversaw" probably isn't quite the right word. I actually told the editor you were "involved in the discussions", which is true. In the RfC and other discussions about using Peppermint's birth name you repeatedly argued against Tenebrae.

"Wikipediocracy tells me you were involved with some discussions around Tenebrae", but I haven't seen any discussions here mentioning that either. I told them I had no idea what they were referring to, but they saw fit to include it anyway apparently. Does anyone here know what on earth they're talking about, or which Wikipediocracy thread they mean?

You're being obtuse. They didn't say discussions on Wikipediocracy, did they?

I was not being obtuse, or at least not deliberately. I assumed by "Wikipediocracy tells me" they meant they were referring to Wikipediocracy discussions. I didn't realize they were referring to the author of the piece as "Wikipediocracy". They also mentioned this in the context of me being an arbitrator, both in the article and in the email to me, and so I assumed this was something to do with Tenebrae at arbitration... not something to do with an IP later revealed as Tenebrae if you happened upon Tenebrae's talk page to see it, in an RfC I created outside of my arbitrator capacity.

It is only just today that I've discovered I was talking to Tenebrae in that RfC—I was not involved in the block discussion at Tenebrae's page, and although it was mentioned immediately prior to the RfC closing that the IP had been blocked, the sockmaster wasn't mentioned there or in the block notice (as is standard with IPs).

Ultimately, the piece needn't have mentioned you at all. I'll ask them to change "oversaw" and "it", or if you'd prefer, I can request they strike the sentence entirely.

But just so we're clear, did you know or suspect that Tenebrae was Lovece?

I didn't even realize the IP was Tenebrae. There's a reason I don't do much sniffing out of socks on Wikipedia... So no, I had no suspicions or knowledge of any connection between Tenebrae and Lovece, the latter of whom I'd never heard of until I looked up Tenebrae here on WO after hearing from the DD editor that I'd apparently had discussions with them.

[Smiley]

Thanks for clarifying, Molly. And by the way, I admire the effort you put into ensuring Wikipedia respected Peppermint's privacy.

The website allows users to defame, denigrate, and distort the lives of its subjects without repercussion, but to "out" an account is a cardinal sin.

This is true is it not? This is the ethos of the site you represent.

[AndyTheGrump]

It should be noted that Tenebrae/Lovece was blocked for two weeks, back in March last year, for sockpuppetry - specifically, for editing while logged out in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policies.. link

What wasn't noted in the SPI (presumably 'open secrets' aren't considered evidence) was that amongst the articles edited by Tenebrae's IP was, you guessed it, Frank Lovece (T-H-L). link

[Giraffe Stapler]

I'm quite unclear as to why they referred to me as the "Wikipedia arbitrator who oversaw the Tenebrae drama". I have no memory of any arbitration involving Tenebrae, and from that wording you'd think I drafted a case on them or something. It doesn't look like there were any cases on them post-2008, far before my time on the Committee. The editor said in their email to me that "Wikipediocracy tells me you were involved with some discussions around Tenebrae", but I haven't seen any discussions here mentioning that either. I told them I had no idea what they were referring to, but they saw fit to include it anyway apparently. Does anyone here know what on earth they're talking about, or which Wikipediocracy thread they mean? My memory's bad but I didn't think it was that bad.

I'm sure you know that most journalists know very little about the inner workings of Wikipedia. I suspect that what happened in this case is the Daily Dot were given some information but without having enough background they filled in what they thought it meant. You were an Arb, and you were involved in discussions with Tenebrae (whether you knew it or not). 2+2=5.

I think it's Wikipediocracy's fault for not being clear enough. Or maybe for being misleading. And probably for assuming that everyone is as aware of all the details of Wikipedia behind the scenes as we forum regulars are.

[GorillaWarfare]

I'm quite unclear as to why they referred to me as the "Wikipedia arbitrator who oversaw the Tenebrae drama". I have no memory of any arbitration involving Tenebrae, and from that wording you'd think I drafted a case on them or something. It doesn't look like there were any cases on them post-2008, far before my time on the Committee. The editor said in their email to me that "Wikipediocracy tells me you were involved with some discussions around Tenebrae", but I haven't seen any discussions here mentioning that either. I told them I had no idea what they were referring to, but they saw fit to include it anyway apparently. Does anyone here know what on earth they're talking about, or which Wikipediocracy thread they mean? My memory's bad but I didn't think it was that bad.

I'm sure you know that most journalists know very little about the inner workings of Wikipedia. I suspect that what happened in this case is the Daily Dot were given some information but without having enough background they filled in what they thought it meant. You were an Arb, and you were involved in discussions with Tenebrae (whether you knew it or not). 2+2=5.

I think it's Wikipediocracy's fault for not being clear enough. Or maybe for being misleading. And probably for assuming that everyone is as aware of all the details of Wikipedia behind the scenes as we forum regulars are.

The Daily Dot article was written by Smiley, I believe, not someone at the Dot. https://www.dailydot.com/author/michael-cockram/c

[Giraffe Stapler]

The Daily Dot article was written by Smiley, I believe, not someone at the Dot. https://www.dailydot.com/author/michael-cockram/c

Well, let's agree that it's Smiley's fault then. But the Daily Dot version does say "Additional reporting by Ramon Ramirez". Regardless, if Wikipediocracy does another piece like this, it is important that the whatever gets published is thoroughly vetted by Wikipediocracy members before publication.

And I do read the "it" the same way you do. I suspect it's just an editing slip.

[Smiley]

More shameless hypocrisy from Frank Lovece.

To a user who was open about their identity:

Wikipedia admins take a very, very dim view of article subjects adding multiple links to their own sites. Read WP:COI. This self-promotion you're exhibiting is solely for your own benefit and does not further the goals of this educational encyclopedia. I don't believe you've contributed to any article whatsoever that doesn't concern you or your own work.--Tenebrae 13:39, 31 December 2011

I would strongly suggest that the subject of the article refrain from editing it. ... If these promotional edits continue, I will have to post a notice at the Conflict of Interest Noticeaboard to request admin action. --Tenebrae 02:26, 28 December 2011

Exploiting Wikipedia for self-promotion is just plain wrong. --Tenebrae 15:58, 15 January 2012

When asked whether he had a conflict of interest:

I have the integrity and ethics that come from years in my profession, and I would never commit nor countenance conflict of interest. Period. ... Now I must ask you to please drop this before it becomes harassment.--Tenebrae 21:35, 6 January 2021

[tarantino]

A recent post, from the guy he's complaining about.

I usually do Music Stuff. I tried "fixing" some Comic Related Articles, like the page about me, but I mostly stay away from that because I've been smacked around by people (Hey Frank) who think I shouldn't be able to "correct" stuff because I'm actually in the Industry. Very odd... albabe - The Writer/Artist Formally Known as Al Gordon 15:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

[Jim]

Starship.paint (T-C-L) added some content about the Daily Dot article to Lovece's bio (archive.is)- but then decided to self revert, and just added a {cn} tag for something else instead.

Tenebrae removed the {cn} tag with his first edit since the publication of the blog/article. Tenebrae's next edit was to add a "you've got mail" note to Talk:Oversight... (that's just in case Oversight don't check their mail, you see... )

[Emptyeye]

The website allows users to defame, denigrate, and distort the lives of its subjects without repercussion, but to "out" an account is a cardinal sin.

This is true is it not? This is the ethos of the site you represent.

I've got to agree with this. As I mentioned when someone said (Heavily paraphrasing) "The WMF believes all editors are interchangeable and there's an infinite supply of them", well, I'm not seeing the lie here.

More generally, there's an extreme reluctance to use anything not on-wiki as on-wiki judgment. Like "Oh, User A claims User B harassed them on Twitter. But even though User B's handle is the same on Twitter and Wikipedia, and even though they've definitely feuded with User A on both sites, and even though they espouse the same beliefs on both site... *Shrug* Sorry User A, nothing we can do, we can't PROVE they're the same person because they haven't admitted it themselves!"

Does Joe Jobbing really happen that often as to make the paragraph above seem less ridiculous than it reads to me?

[AndyTheGrump]

Anyone interested in seeing a classic example of Lovece's self-promotion need only look at the Atomic Age (comics) (T-H-L) article:

Atomic Age is a four-issue comic-book miniseries, cover-dated November 1990 to February 1991, published by the Marvel Comics creator-owned imprint Epic Comics. It was created by writer Frank Lovece and penciler Mike Okamoto, and inked by Al Williamson.

Number one contributor by edit count? Yup, 'Tenebrae'. Also edited by the IP sock he got blocked for, to add material praising one Frank Lovece. No surprise there. link. Note also that said IP seems to be very familiar with the plot of this 'comic-book miniseries' from thirty years ago, though apparently reluctant to make such knowledge public, since said IP misleadingly describes the changes as "trimmed wordiness" in the edit summary. link

[Smiley]

Anyone interested in seeing a classic example of Lovece's self-promotion need only look at the Atomic Age (comics) (T-H-L) article

Atomic Age (Epic Comics) was merged into that article.

It was created by JimCorrigan (T-C-L) who uploaded this picture.

[Smiley]

Seems everyone has a conflict of interest except Tenebrae.

{{COI|date=February 2021}}

diff Frank Lovece‎ 18:41 −27‎ ‎Tenebrae (Article was by banned user User:Hillbillyholiday, who had a history of personal clashes with me, cherrypicked selective information, ignoring whatever didn't fit his thesis, among other editorial lapses, and was a poor attempt at WP:OUTING. The subject in the article denied any connection)

Incidentally, Lovece, who claims he has no involvement with Wikipedia, sent a message to the Daily Dot to inform them I was "banned from Wikipedia and clashed with Tenebrae and have an 'agenda' against Tenebrae."

[AndyTheGrump]

Anyone interested in seeing a classic example of Lovece's self-promotion need only look at the Atomic Age (comics) (T-H-L) article

Atomic Age (Epic Comics) was merged into that article.

It was created by JimCorrigan (T-C-L) who uploaded this picture.

'JImCorrigan' seems not to have edited much, but to have shared a great deal of Tenebrae/Lovece's interests: link

If I was more of a cynical bastard than I am, I might well wonder whether Corrigan and Lovece were one and the same person...

[AndyTheGrump]

Incidentally, Lovece, who claims he has no involvement with Wikipedia, sent a message to the Daily Dot to inform them I was "banned from Wikipedia and clashed with Tenebrae and have an 'agenda' against Tenebrae."

Did Lovece explain how he came to know about this 'agenda'?

[Smiley]

Did Lovece explain how he came to know about this 'agenda'?

No. I guess he's just a very good researcher! The Daily Dot ignored his request that they provide a disclaimer.


Now, Nightscream (T-C-L) has reverted Tenebrae's removal of this:

Placed "conflict of interest" flag on article

After reading this story, it would appear that a major contributor to this biography has autobiographical intentions. I hope that's okay, and not out of line. - I am dis big (T-C-L) 18:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

with the comment:

Let that uninvolved admin decide whether these messages should remain, per WP:TALK, and not someone with a possible COI.

As noted by the Dot, Nightscream is friends with Tenebrae and has met him.
He is also the person who provided the photo of Lovece for the article.

[Smiley]

diff Frank Lovece‎ 18:41 −27‎ ‎Tenebrae (Article was by banned user User:Hillbillyholiday, who had a history of personal clashes with me, cherrypicked selective information, ignoring whatever didn't fit his thesis, among other editorial lapses, and was a poor attempt at WP:OUTING. The subject in the article denied any connection)

He's accusing me of WP:OUTING even though those rules don't apply outside the wacky world of Wikipedia.

Furthermore, with that comment he is actually outing me, as I never declared my name on Wikipedia.

Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia.

[Smiley]

Looks like his own rules don't apply to Wikipedia's caped crusader for Free Knowledge.

KA-POW!




Here's the reliably sourced info the Prince of Darkness got removed from his alter ego's BLP:

In 2021, The Daily Dot, working with Wikipediocracy, reported multiple connections between Lovece and Wikipedia editor Tenebrae, who claims to be a journalist with a Wikipedia article about them.[22] Tenebrae created the Wikipedia article on Lovece in 2005, frequently edited that article, and repeatedly cited Lovece in other Wikipedia articles.[22] Lovece once referred to a claim on Wikipedia regarding David Schwimmer, stating that he would "take that rumour and bash it to the ground"; Tenebrae followed by deleting that claim.[22] Lovece denied having any connection to Tenebrae.[22]

https://archive.vn/BntaZ

[Bezdomni]

Let an admin decide re: WP:OUTING, which Wiki Foundation takes seriously.

The Tenebrae do seem to be aware.

[ArmasRebane]

I'm quite unclear as to why they referred to me as the "Wikipedia arbitrator who oversaw the Tenebrae drama". I have no memory of any arbitration involving Tenebrae, and from that wording you'd think I drafted a case on them or something. It doesn't look like there were any cases on them post-2008, far before my time on the Committee. The editor said in their email to me that "Wikipediocracy tells me you were involved with some discussions around Tenebrae", but I haven't seen any discussions here mentioning that either. I told them I had no idea what they were referring to, but they saw fit to include it anyway apparently. Does anyone here know what on earth they're talking about, or which Wikipediocracy thread they mean? My memory's bad but I didn't think it was that bad.

I'm sure you know that most journalists know very little about the inner workings of Wikipedia. I suspect that what happened in this case is the Daily Dot were given some information but without having enough background they filled in what they thought it meant. You were an Arb, and you were involved in discussions with Tenebrae (whether you knew it or not). 2+2=5.

I think it's Wikipediocracy's fault for not being clear enough. Or maybe for being misleading. And probably for assuming that everyone is as aware of all the details of Wikipedia behind the scenes as we forum regulars are.

The Arbitration Committee isn't some inscrutable thing; it's got a page that explains its structure, a policy, and basically every case available to look at to understand its composition. Journalists should actually look at what they're writing about.

It's always either laziness, or the intent, active or otherwise, to focus on "a good story" over accuracy (c.f. the Gamergate case, where a party dissatisfied with the proposed decision ran to the press and got them to uncritically repeat his assertions because they didn't either read the decision or understand how the PD phase works.)

It's ultimately on the Daily Dot whether or not they contributed to it, because it's their name that's at the top.

[Vigilant]

Here we are again with another shitheel hiding behind the thinnest, most tattered sheet of pretend anonymity and wailing that it isn't them, when it's as obvious as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.

How many times have we seen this little kabuki play?

How long will the wikipediots refuse to do the right thing here?

[Smiley]

Journalists should actually look at what they're writing about. ... It's always either laziness, or the intent, active or otherwise, to focus on "a good story" over accuracy

"...Wikipedia arbitrator who oversaw the Tenebrae drama..."

Assuming arbitrators are like presidents and keep the title upon leaving office, the only real quibble here is the use of "oversaw", which I've asked them to amend. I take the blame for not thoroughly proofreading.

Are there any other inaccuracies or can we get back to highlighting Lovece's mendacity and Wikipedia's double standards?

Unlike tabloids where journalists publish under their real names, anonymous Wikipedia editors—and the site itself—can’t be held accountable.

The Dot contacted Lovece and allowed him to have his say about the allegations. If he wishes he can sue them or me.

On Wikipedia, Tenebrae removed reliably sourced information about him and his alter ego, yet it appears they don't have a problem with him "outing" me and accusing me of harassment. I am officially prevented from responding on Wikipedia. Can I sue Wikipedia or "Tenebrae"?

[AndyTheGrump]

It should probably be noted that even if one were to accept the Wiki-fiction that Tenebrae isn't Lovace because he says he isn't, there might well still be a question as to whether Tenebrae's enthusiastic editing of Lovece-related content (his bio, the comic-book article, the relentless citations of this particular film critic's opinions in multiple articles, all in much the same style...) might be indicative of a 'conflict of interest' as defined in Wikipedia policy? They don't actually need to prove identity to prove a policy violation. And Wikipedia routinely blocks contributors for 'COI' on far less evidence, without knowing who they are at all.

[Smiley]

It should probably be noted that even if one were to accept the Wiki-fiction that Tenebrae isn't Lovace because he says he isn't, there might well still be a question as to whether Tenebrae's enthusiastic editing of Lovece-related content (his bio, the comic-book article, the relentless citations of this particular film critic's opinions in multiple articles, all in much the same style...) might be indicative of a 'conflict of interest' as defined in Wikipedia policy? They don't actually need to prove identity to prove a policy violation. And Wikipedia routinely blocks contributors for 'COI' on far less evidence, without knowing who they are at all.

The Dot associated Tenebrae with Lovece and was highly critical of his actions. Even if he isn't Lovece, one could argue that Tenebrae now has a COI and shouldn't be editing that particular BLP.

A quick reminder now that he's removed all mention of this from Lovece's biography:

I have no feelings about anything accurate, pertinent and neutral on the Wikipedia article or indeed any published article about me. [...] Otherwise I would be the most self-centered, unprofessional journalist imaginable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =798056955

[tarantino]

Tenebrae uploaded a photo of Kelsey Grammer. (Kelsey Grammer at May 5, 2010 Tony Awards press event, NYC. I am the author of this work.)

Frank Lovece reports from the May 5, 2010 Tony Awards press event, and quotes Kelsey Grammer.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Looks like his own rules don't apply to Wikipedia's caped crusader for Free Knowledge.

Here's the reliably sourced info the Prince of Darkness got removed from his alter ego's BLP:

In 2021, The Daily Dot, working with Wikipediocracy, reported multiple connections between Lovece and Wikipedia editor Tenebrae, who claims to be a journalist with a Wikipedia article about them.[22] Tenebrae created the Wikipedia article on Lovece in 2005, frequently edited that article, and repeatedly cited Lovece in other Wikipedia articles.[22] Lovece once referred to a claim on Wikipedia regarding David Schwimmer, stating that he would "take that rumour and bash it to the ground"; Tenebrae followed by deleting that claim.[22] Lovece denied having any connection to Tenebrae.[22]

https://archive.vn/BntaZ

So the edits were supressed and the logs show nothing. Was this a proper use of the supression tool?

Removal of non-public personal information. Suppression is a tool of first resort in removing this type information, such as:

• Phone numbers, home addresses, social security numbers, credit card numbers, workplaces or other nonpublic personal data.
• Identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public.
• IP data of editors who accidentally logged out and thus inadvertently revealed their own IP addresses.
• IP data of editors without an account on request.

You could appeal to Arbcom, but since it was probably Primefac who did it, don't even expect to get a reply. If a Wikipedia editor is outed on Reddit or Twitter or here, then it makes sense to remove that outing. But when a Wikipedia editor gets identified by a reliable source in a news story, that's a different situation entirely. Now removing that is censoring the news to protect the identity of an editor. If that's not the tail wagging the dog, I don't know what is.

[Smiley]

Thank you for the kind words, Cunctator. As I recall, having written for Oui, Genesis and Penthouse back in the day, the magazine industry refers to this segment as "men's sophisticate" magazines. (I was doing technology and film stories and actor/director interviews, BTW, not photographing models or anything.)--Tenebrae (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2011

How queer! So did Frank Lovece!

* Oui
* Genesis
* Penthouse


Plus, another scheming sock:

108.21.104.134 claimed to be a noob in 2011.
They seemed obsessed with Demi Moore's real name just like Lovece.
They edited Habitat magazine who employed Lovece.
They berated another editor for having a COI regarding their BLP.

You're a disgusting hypocrite and a barefaced liar, Frank.

[tarantino]

Now, Nightscream (T-C-L) has reverted Tenebrae's removal of this: Placed "conflict of interest" flag on article

Nightscream also edited Peppermint (entertainer) (T-H-L) and The Daily Dot (T-H-L) today.

I wonder if he didn't realize Tenebrae was Frank before now?

[Beeblebrox]

As always, I cannot reveal details of whatever internal discussions we may be having, but I would remind everyone that suppression is considered a "tool of first resort", meaning we go ahead and use it if there is any indication it is warranted, but will often discuss it on the mailing list if it seems marginal. The OS team is in a tough spot here, and exactly what the appropriate response is is not 100% clear. Basically caught between outing and conflict of interest, neither policy clearly "outranking" the other.

Also, our shiny new arbs are also very committed to the idea that anyone who contacts us and isn't just outright trolling deserves some sort of response, an attitude I fully support. Now, the response may just be the boilerplate "We got your message and are discussing it" because we're only on day 2 here and this is a committee, but community input is appreciated, in particular if you may have some detail not already in the reporting that went public yesterday.

[Giraffe Stapler]

As always, I cannot reveal details of whatever internal discussions we may be having, but I would remind everyone that suppression is considered a "tool of first resort", meaning we go ahead and use it if there is any indication it is warranted, but will often discuss it on the mailing list if it seems marginal. The OS team is in a tough spot here, and exactly what the appropriate response is is not 100% clear. Basically caught between outing and conflict of interest, neither policy clearly "outranking" the other.

Also, our shiny new arbs are also very committed to the idea that anyone who contacts us and isn't just outright trolling deserves some sort of response, an attitude I fully support. Now, the response may just be the boilerplate "We got your message and are discussing it" because we're only on day 2 here and this is a committee, but community input is appreciated, in particular if you may have some detail not already in the reporting that went public yesterday.

That's good to hear. I recognize that when one ok-ish reliable source outs a Wikipedia editor, it's questionable. Better if there are more sources, or a better source. I get it. But the Daily Dot says they talked to Lovece and he denies being Tenebrae, so is it even outing? There's a case to be made that it doesn't belong in Frank Lovece's Wikipedia biography, but is there a policy-based reason for suppressing the edits? They asked the guy and he said nope, that ain't me. So where's the outing? It's more like a non-outing. We thought it was this guy, so we asked him and he told us we were wrong.

And it's one thing if oversighters were acting on their own, out of principle, and another if they are acting at the request of the very editor involved. If Lovece is quoted as saying he's not Tenebrae, why should Tenebrae care so much about it? It makes Arbcom look complicit.