Doxing, Outing or Harassment

[Peter Damian]

As I can see two sitting arbitrators reading this thread, can I repeat the plea in the other thread. Please do something about this nasty piece of outing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =546878562 I will be visiting WMUK this lunchtime to see if they can also do something, since some of the claims on that thread relate to things they have said.

I can't say I know enough about the history here and am just disappearing to a meeting at 11, perhaps an email to the arbitration committee or the oversight list would be a good idea?

Edit: Now have had time to have a quick look at this and I do not believe it falls under OUTING - as defined under wikipedia policy - because alternate accounts confirmed to be Peter Damian's have linked the two names. As for the rest, there's not much for me to say, nor is there more that I will say.

It is a form of harassment by this particular user, and in conjunction with the (false) claim about my being banned from WMUK events, it amounts to damaging my reputation. I met WMUK an hour ago and asked what they could do, and they kindly posted the clarification below - for the original, see Jimbo's talk page.

I have also been assured separately by a representative of the Foundation that the whole thing is being taken 'very seriously' and there have been, and will be, meetings with the arbitration committee. Perhaps you were not copied in on those?

All, there's been a bit more discussion on Peter Damian in a thread above. I really want to make this clear, however, to everyone, so I'm starting a new section: Peter Damian is not banned from any Wikimedia UK events. We were, in late 2011, worried about his attending an event at the British Library, and we reacted to that by banning him from attending it. This evolved into a 'general ban from events'. However, it was pointed out to us that this ban was perhaps an overreaction, and indeed after having met with Peter in person over a cup of tea, we are quite happy that he is not a 'threat to security'. As a result, we rethought the ban - it was, shall we say, a decision made in haste. We retracted it, and issued an apology for the phrasing. I'm happy to repeat that: Peter is not a threat to our member's security.
The whole issue did raise a big question, however, as to how we could deal with concerns like these in future. Obviously, banning anyone is not the best thing to do - it's quite firm and final - and as a result, we wrote a Participation Policy, which is much more sensible and covers practically all eventualities. I'm more than happy to chat with people about this, but I don't keep an eye on this talk page. If anyone has any questions, or wants a chat, drop me an email at richard.symondswikimedia.org.uk and we'll sort something out. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =546896893

[Malleus]

It is a form of harassment by this particular user, and in conjunction with the (false) claim about my being banned from WMUK events, it amounts to damaging my reputation. I met WMUK an hour ago and asked what they could do, and they kindly posted the clarification below - for the original, see Jimbo's talk page.

I have also been assured separately by a representative of the Foundation that the whole thing is being taken 'very seriously' and there have been, and will be, meetings with the arbitration committee. Perhaps you were not copied in on those?

It's very clearly libellous, but of course even to suggest that on WP would be to invite a block/ban.

[Anroth]

Sigh

[Kumioko]

And when they say talk with the Arbcom they mean brush it under the table and pretend it never happened. Can't go ruffling those Arbcom feathers you know.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

You arbs showed not a lot of concern to the privacy of Malleus Fatuorum when you crawled over his IP for two months and micro-examined and debated his work and living arrangements, Internet usage on Christmas Day, and relationship with George Ponderavo, before finally issuing a public proclamation about it.

If an abusively treated editor comes to this site to call out Wikipedia's bad processes and defects of authority, that's a positive development. You say that such are privately derided as bitter blockees. Other participants here obviously come from different angles. I'm a newcomer so I'll make myself scarce after this, but with the parting suggestion that if as you say "more sensible" Wikipedians are driven off leaving the "empty vessels," read it as a nudge for the sensible ones to start enlightening and reining in the empties.

+1

In fairness, please note that Worm That Turned / David did oppose part of Arbcom's harassment of Eric Corbett / Malleus Fatuorum.

[tarantino]

Why wasn't the admin Favonian (T-C-L) indefinitely blocked for making sure that the real name and birthday of Nipponese Dog Calvero is included in his abuse profile? This info was never self-disclosed on enwiki.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Rules don't apply to banned users?

[Poetlister]

Rules don't apply to banned users?

Rules don't apply to admins?