Doxing, Outing or Harassment

[EricBarbour]

This is the type of question that, in my experience, most consistently stumps an active WP administrator or arbitrator. When they're about to take or have just taken strong action on someone for allegedly violating some rule, if you point out that one of their own (administrator or established editor) did the same thing in the past and nothing happened, you get no response. What can they say?

It has happened scores of times in the past, and I do not think Mr. Worm will be any different.

[Zoloft]

<Rodney Dangerfield>Tough crowd, tough crowd...</Rodney Dangerfield>

[iii]

When they're about to take or have just taken strong action on someone for allegedly violating some rule, if you point out that one of their own (administrator or established editor) did the same thing in the past and nothing happened, you get no response. What can they say?

They say, "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS."

[Cla68]

When they're about to take or have just taken strong action on someone for allegedly violating some rule, if you point out that one of their own (administrator or established editor) did the same thing in the past and nothing happened, you get no response. What can they say?

They say, "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS."

I've never seen anyone in this situation reference that essay but, if they ever did, they wouldn't look too good because that essay addresses content issues, not administrative actions related to editor conduct.

[DanMurphy]

When they're about to take or have just taken strong action on someone for allegedly violating some rule, if you point out that one of their own (administrator or established editor) did the same thing in the past and nothing happened, you get no response. What can they say?

They say, "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS."

I've never seen anyone in this situation reference that essay but, if they ever did, they wouldn't look too good because that essay addresses content issues, not administrative actions related to editor conduct.

Hmmmm... WP:NOTTHEM?

ADDING:
Just looked at it for the first time in years. It starts off like something out of a reeducation camp manual (emphasis Wikipedia's):

Talk about yourself, not others
You are blocked because of what you did, not because of what others did, even if another editor did something first. For this reason:

1. Do not complain about other people, such as editors you may have been in a conflict with, or the blocking administrator. Others' incorrect actions will not make your own inappropriate actions or responses acceptable. Any disagreements with others should be addressed through dispute resolution after you are unblocked, but your unblock request is not the place for this. The only thing that your unblock request needs to address is why you did not in fact disrupt Wikipedia or why you will no longer do so. Unblock requests that contain personal attacks or incivility against others will be declined.
2. Do not excuse what you did with what others did. Two wrongs do not make a right. An unblock request that just asks administrators to block another editor will be declined...

That whole page is quite something. So loving. And thoughtful.

[Volunteer Marek]

When they're about to take or have just taken strong action on someone for allegedly violating some rule, if you point out that one of their own (administrator or established editor) did the same thing in the past and nothing happened, you get no response. What can they say?

They say, "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS."

That one is right behind WP:AGF as one of the stupidest Wikipedia... practices (it's an essay but not a policy, but treated like a policy) on there. It contradicts the very way of how Wikipedia policies are supposed to be developed - i.e. Wikipedia policies supposedly become policies when they enshrine "best practice" or, more honestly, "common practice". So an appeal to "Other Stuff" is really just saying "hey, that's how we usually do it, it's common practice". But somehow as soon as someone writes WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in response that becomes WP:WRONG!!!

It's the general schizophrenia of the site.

[iii]

When they're about to take or have just taken strong action on someone for allegedly violating some rule, if you point out that one of their own (administrator or established editor) did the same thing in the past and nothing happened, you get no response. What can they say?

They say, "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS."

I've never seen anyone in this situation reference that essay but, if they ever did, they wouldn't look too good because that essay addresses content issues, not administrative actions related to editor conduct.

Try to see the general environment that encourages this kind of inconsistent thinking. Imagine this being said in the most pedantic of voices: "Just because there is an uneven application of the rules doesn't mean that the rules shouldn't be applied in this particular case. The other instances are irrelevant. And no, I don't feel the need to address those other cases. I'm just going to address you."

[EricBarbour]

When they're about to take or have just taken strong action on someone for allegedly violating some rule, if you point out that one of their own (administrator or established editor) did the same thing in the past and nothing happened, you get no response. What can they say?

They say, "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS."

I've never seen anyone in this situation reference that essay but, if they ever did, they wouldn't look too good because that essay addresses content issues, not administrative actions related to editor conduct.

Try to see the general environment that encourages this kind of inconsistent thinking. Imagine this being said in the most pedantic of voices: "Just because there is an uneven application of the rules doesn't mean that the rules shouldn't be applied in this particular case. The other instances are irrelevant. And no, I don't feel the need to address those other cases. I'm just going to address you."

For fuck's sake. Will you gentlemen please stop focusing on the finer points of "policies", and just come out and say that the administration of Wikipedia is completely incompetent, corrupt, and inconsistent? You keep arguing around these trivial items. They mean nothing, because you're not Wiki-Cops with little sparkly Wiki-Badges that make you "better" and "more important" than anyone else.

The whole system is rotten. Just because there are a few good cops doesn't mean they balance out the large number of bad ones.

[Notvelty]

When they're about to take or have just taken strong action on someone for allegedly violating some rule, if you point out that one of their own (administrator or established editor) did the same thing in the past and nothing happened, you get no response. What can they say?

They say, "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS."

I've never seen anyone in this situation reference that essay but, if they ever did, they wouldn't look too good because that essay addresses content issues, not administrative actions related to editor conduct.

Try to see the general environment that encourages this kind of inconsistent thinking. Imagine this being said in the most pedantic of voices: "Just because there is an uneven application of the rules doesn't mean that the rules shouldn't be applied in this particular case. The other instances are irrelevant. And no, I don't feel the need to address those other cases. I'm just going to address you."

Good start. But you missed the bit about lying about not having seen the other cases. That's an important step.

Dave is just one more of a long line of rug sweepers. You'd like to say that they talk big, but deliver little. Unfortunately, he doesn't even do that

Notvelty

[Captain Occam]

For fuck's sake. Will you gentlemen please stop focusing on the finer points of "policies", and just come out and say that the administration of Wikipedia is completely incompetent, corrupt, and inconsistent? You keep arguing around these trivial items. They mean nothing, because you're not Wiki-Cops with little sparkly Wiki-Badges that make you "better" and "more important" than anyone else.

The whole system is rotten. Just because there are a few good cops doesn't mean they balance out the large number of bad ones.

For anyone who wants to still participate there, it's important to know how to work within the system as well as possible. I know it doesn't matter to you, but I don't think Cla68 has given up on being unblocked yet.

The point of WP:NOTTHEM is just for editors who are making appeals. I'm pretty sure it isn't meant as a justification for admins to not enforce policy consistently. So in Cla68's case I wouldn't suggest bringing up Beyond my Ken as an argument for getting ArbCom to unblock him, but after he's unblocked it should be a valid criticism of their decision to enforce outing policy in Cla68's case but not in other cases.

[Cla68]

For fuck's sake. Will you gentlemen please stop focusing on the finer points of "policies", and just come out and say that the administration of Wikipedia is completely incompetent, corrupt, and inconsistent? You keep arguing around these trivial items. They mean nothing, because you're not Wiki-Cops with little sparkly Wiki-Badges that make you "better" and "more important" than anyone else.

The whole system is rotten. Just because there are a few good cops doesn't mean they balance out the large number of bad ones.

For anyone who wants to still participate there, it's important to know how to work within the system as well as possible. I know it doesn't matter to you, but I don't think Cla68 has given up on being unblocked yet.

The point of WP:NOTTHEM is just for editors who are making appeals. I'm pretty sure it isn't meant as a justification for admins to not enforce policy consistently. So in Cla68's case I wouldn't suggest bringing up Beyond my Ken as an argument for getting ArbCom to unblock him, but after he's unblocked it should be a valid criticism of their decision to enforce outing policy in Cla68's case but not in other cases.

That is correct.

[Mathsci]

For fuck's sake. Will you gentlemen please stop focusing on the finer points of "policies", and just come out and say that the administration of Wikipedia is completely incompetent, corrupt, and inconsistent? You keep arguing around these trivial items. They mean nothing, because you're not Wiki-Cops with little sparkly Wiki-Badges that make you "better" and "more important" than anyone else.

The whole system is rotten. Just because there are a few good cops doesn't mean they balance out the large number of bad ones.

For anyone who wants to still participate there, it's important to know how to work within the system as well as possible. I know it doesn't matter to you, but I don't think Cla68 has given up on being unblocked yet.

The point of WP:NOTTHEM is just for editors who are making appeals. I'm pretty sure it isn't meant as a justification for admins to not enforce policy consistently. So in Cla68's case I wouldn't suggest bringing up Beyond my Ken as an argument for getting ArbCom to unblock him, but after he's unblocked it should be a valid criticism of their decision to enforce outing policy in Cla68's case but not in other cases.

That is correct.

Risker mentions on Timotheus Canens' talk page that matters are not that simple. (Cla68 has since responded through Kevin.)

Perhaps a promise not to pursue any kind of lengthy arbcom processes in 2013 related to these incidents would hasten an unblock.

Returning to DOXing, my experience with the oversight team has been very good. In particular recently Alison, who's some kind of guardian angel, has twice acted within minutes of receiving a request. It also involved several foreign language wikipedias and WMF helped out there.

[Captain Occam]

Perhaps a promise not to pursue any kind of lengthy arbcom processes in 2013 related to these incidents would hasten an unblock.

That's been the real point all along, hasn't it? In having Cla68 blocked, I mean. It isn't that what he did was any worse than what lots of other people have done and got away with; it's just that when someone has been trying to get ArbCom to enforce policy about Wikipedia's insiders, the most convenient thing is to find a way to silence them.

[Kevin]

Risker mentions on Timotheus Canens' talk page that matters are not that simple. (Cla68 has since responded through Kevin.)

Perhaps a promise not to pursue any kind of lengthy arbcom processes in 2013 related to these incidents would hasten an unblock.
<snip>

It's been weeks now, clearly nothing Cla says to Arbcom will make any difference. Neither is there a credible reason to believe that he will break the rules again. I think the real reason is that there are 2 factions, in deadlock over whether to let him back or not. That was fairly apparent in my case, and I guess that what Cla did is seen as more heinous than me disrespecting their authoritah.

[SB_Johnny]

The block is an arbitration block and so it can only be dealt with by the arbitration committee. Cla68 has contacted us by email and we are currently in discussions over the matter. He has no need for talk page access and given the circumstances, it is standard to keep the talk page closed to him.

That being said, there should be no need for anyone else to be posting here. If you want to discuss the matter with the committee, take it to the committee's noticeboard. If people cannot keep away from this page whilst Cla68 cannot edit it, I will fully protect it until there is a decision. WormTT(talk) 08:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

[turnedworm]

Turnedworm, are you going to respond to my point about outing policy only being enforced for certain editors, while others (such as Beyond my Ken) are able to get away with doing exactly the same thing Cla68 got blocked for, even when it's reported? This is an opportunity for you to show whether you legitimately care about Wikipedians' privacy, or whether you're another example of someone who only cares about rules insofar as they can be used to preserve Wikipedia's power structure. (Ignoring the issue entirely would imply it's the latter.)

Aye Cap'n. There's a lot going on in this thread, I haven't regularly used forums for a good 5-10 years so I'm sorry I missed your comments in my quick overview yesterday. I should have a bit more time today, so I will go back over and see if I've missed anything.

Inconsistency on Wikipedia is one of it's biggest problems. It goes to the very core of the way everyone thinks there - handle the problem now and damn precedent. Without a governing board, it's the community that decides everything and attitudes change over time. What's more, the community is massive and the people who affect decisions are those who are nearby at the time. I jotted down a few thoughts on contradictions one day when it really annoyed me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Worm_ ... radictions

I was focussed on civility there, but it happens everywhere. Personally, I try to be consistent - which is a start. I'll consistantly talk to people I believe are causing problems, rather than block them on sight. Unfortunately, other people are not so trigger-shy. Someone brought up the fact that blocked editors are not treated well - it's true. I've often stopped gravedancing in the past and I intend to carry on doing so. To disagree with a previous arbitrator, being blocked does not stop you being a Wikipedian.

I can't see anything regarding Beyond My Ken in this thread (feel free to PM or email me), but the deleted Mathsci diff was beyond the pale. I'm sorry to see it was ignored for so long. A few people have said, I'm fairly new to this.

[turnedworm]

The block is an arbitration block and so it can only be dealt with by the arbitration committee. Cla68 has contacted us by email and we are currently in discussions over the matter. He has no need for talk page access and given the circumstances, it is standard to keep the talk page closed to him.

That being said, there should be no need for anyone else to be posting here. If you want to discuss the matter with the committee, take it to the committee's noticeboard. If people cannot keep away from this page whilst Cla68 cannot edit it, I will fully protect it until there is a decision. WormTT(talk) 08:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

One problem at a time. I'm just going to answer my PMs here then going to make a few suggestions on the list with regard to Cla68.

[Mathsci]

Turnedworm, are you going to respond to my point about outing policy only being enforced for certain editors, while others (such as Beyond my Ken) are able to get away with doing exactly the same thing Cla68 got blocked for, even when it's reported? This is an opportunity for you to show whether you legitimately care about Wikipedians' privacy, or whether you're another example of someone who only cares about rules insofar as they can be used to preserve Wikipedia's power structure. (Ignoring the issue entirely would imply it's the latter.)

Aye Cap'n. There's a lot going on in this thread, I haven't regularly used forums for a good 5-10 years so I'm sorry I missed your comments in my quick overview yesterday. I should have a bit more time today, so I will go back over and see if I've missed anything.

Inconsistency on Wikipedia is one of it's biggest problems. It goes to the very core of the way everyone thinks there - handle the problem now and damn precedent. Without a governing board, it's the community that decides everything and attitudes change over time. What's more, the community is massive and the people who affect decisions are those who are nearby at the time. I jotted down a few thoughts on contradictions one day when it really annoyed me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Worm_ ... radictions

I was focussed on civility there, but it happens everywhere. Personally, I try to be consistent - which is a start. I'll consistantly talk to people I believe are causing problems, rather than block them on sight. Unfortunately, other people are not so trigger-shy. Someone brought up the fact that blocked editors are not treated well - it's true. I've often stopped gravedancing in the past and I intend to carry on doing so. To disagree with a previous arbitrator, being blocked does not stop you being a Wikipedian.

I can't see anything regarding Beyond My Ken in this thread (feel free to PM or email me), but the deleted Mathsci diff was beyond the pale. I'm sorry to see it was ignored for so long. A few people have said, I'm fairly new to this.

Worm That Turned, the diff from 2006 was submitted as evidence in an arbcom case in 2010. It has been resubmitted to arbcom two or three more times since, without success. The person in question had self-identified on wikipedia (they edited the deleted article on Myron Evans with a COI). In late December 2012 I discovered that the name was still on my first talk page archive . I emailed Roger Davies requesting him to remove it (there had been some glitsch). Here are the logs. Please ask Roger for more information.

[Captain Occam]

Turnedworm, are you going to respond to my point about outing policy only being enforced for certain editors, while others (such as Beyond my Ken) are able to get away with doing exactly the same thing Cla68 got blocked for, even when it's reported? This is an opportunity for you to show whether you legitimately care about Wikipedians' privacy, or whether you're another example of someone who only cares about rules insofar as they can be used to preserve Wikipedia's power structure. (Ignoring the issue entirely would imply it's the latter.)

Aye Cap'n. There's a lot going on in this thread, I haven't regularly used forums for a good 5-10 years so I'm sorry I missed your comments in my quick overview yesterday. I should have a bit more time today, so I will go back over and see if I've missed anything.

Inconsistency on Wikipedia is one of it's biggest problems. It goes to the very core of the way everyone thinks there - handle the problem now and damn precedent. Without a governing board, it's the community that decides everything and attitudes change over time. What's more, the community is massive and the people who affect decisions are those who are nearby at the time. I jotted down a few thoughts on contradictions one day when it really annoyed me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Worm_ ... radictions

I was focussed on civility there, but it happens everywhere. Personally, I try to be consistent - which is a start. I'll consistantly talk to people I believe are causing problems, rather than block them on sight. Unfortunately, other people are not so trigger-shy. Someone brought up the fact that blocked editors are not treated well - it's true. I've often stopped gravedancing in the past and I intend to carry on doing so. To disagree with a previous arbitrator, being blocked does not stop you being a Wikipedian.

I can't see anything regarding Beyond My Ken in this thread (feel free to PM or email me), but the deleted Mathsci diff was beyond the pale. I'm sorry to see it was ignored for so long. A few people have said, I'm fairly new to this.

OK, thanks, this is the sort of response I was looking for. Now, I just hope that in future arbitration decisions you'll follow through with what you've said here. There have been some fairly recent examples of ArbCom either encouraging this inconsistency or being unwilling to do anything about it when editors appealed to them about it, one of which involved Cla68 just a few months ago. If you want to know more details about that, you can ask me, Cla68, or The Devil's Advocate--I'm sure both of them know what I'm talking about.

Incidentally, maybe I should mention that Roger Davies was one of the arbitrators most responsible for it in that case. T. Canens was responsible also, although this was before he got elected to ArbCom, when he was still just an AE admin.

As far as Beyond my Ken is concerned, what I was referring to is what Vigilant described in his posts in this thread. Vigilant clearly knows more about this than I do, though, so if you want to know more about that you're better off asking him rather than me. (I'm familiar with Beyond my Ken's history of incivility, but not so much with the outing and socking.)

[Hex]

I jotted down a few thoughts on contradictions one day when it really annoyed me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Worm_ ... radictions

Thanks for this. For me one of the most jarring contradictions is the frequent use of legalese and quasi-legal signifiers despite the assertions made time and time again that "Wikipedia is not a court" and "Arbitration is not a legal process". I'm trying to bring people up on it when I see it (those two links are recent examples) but it happens so often.

[Captain Occam]

Guys, I've got a question. When discussions here have led to people making comments directed at Cla68 on-wiki, where he couldn't respond due to his block, he's directed other people at this forum to the discussion. When this happens in my case, am I allowed to do the same thing?

In this case the on-wiki discussion this thread led to is here. ArbCom has rejected Mathsci's attempts at getting them to endorse his theory about other people editing on my behalf at least twice; first in this thread (note especially the comment by Jclemens), and again (and a bit more decisively) here. But Worm that turned, being a new arbitrator, probably isn't aware of that.

In this case it isn't so much for my sake that it matters. I think it's moderately likely that The Devil's Advocate will be making another arbitration request at some point about his and Cla68's one-way interaction bans with Mathsci, and this looks suspiciously like another attempt to prejudice arbitrators against any such request based on the association with me. I think the clearest sign of that is the claim that I've initiated arbitration proceedings about MastCell. It's very easy to verify that I haven't, but I have talked to Cla68 and The Devil's Advocate about whether one of them might want to make a request about MastCell at some point, so this looks a lot like an attempt to make Worm that Turned think they're following in my footsteps if they ever do.

[thekohser]

Without a governing board, it's the community that decides everything and attitudes change over time. What's more, the community is massive and the people who affect decisions are those who are nearby at the time.

Ah, yes... that "community" we keep hearing so much about.

Here's a similar community without a governing board:

[SB_Johnny]

One problem at a time. I'm just going to answer my PMs here then going to make a few suggestions on the list with regard to Cla68.

Good gravy. Is arbcom commandeering our PM system?

[roger_pearse]

Someone brought up the fact that blocked editors are not treated well - it's true. .... To disagree with a previous arbitrator, being blocked does not stop you being a Wikipedian.

True. It only stops normal people being Wikipedians.

The real problem with the whole "disciplinary" (what cheek!) process is that it is public.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Vigilant]

Someone brought up the fact that blocked editors are not treated well - it's true. .... To disagree with a previous arbitrator, being blocked does not stop you being a Wikipedian.

True. It only stops normal people being Wikipedians.

The real problem with the whole "disciplinary" (what cheek!) process is that it is public.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

The funniest, but least productive, part of that process is the "community's" need for the banned editor's ritual self abasement to be allowed back into the fold.

[Randy from Boise]

Someone brought up the fact that blocked editors are not treated well - it's true. .... To disagree with a previous arbitrator, being blocked does not stop you being a Wikipedian.

True. It only stops normal people being Wikipedians.

The real problem with the whole "disciplinary" (what cheek!) process is that it is public.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

The funniest, but least productive, part of that process is the "community's" need for the banned editor's ritual self abasement to be allowed back into the fold.

This is the essence of "criticism-selfcriticism," which was pervasive in the USSR during the 1930s and also — unless I'm mistaken, it's outside my area of expertise — in China especially during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution of the 1960s.

Deviants from the norms of accepted behavior were denounced in series by their peers at a group session closely resembling the confrontational meetings arranged by the friends of alcoholics attempting to pressure them into accepting the reality of their bad behavior and its impact on others. Criticism was brutal, deeply personalized, and — much like what we see on WP — issues from the seemingly distant past were frequently dredged up to illustrate the general worthlessness of the subject. Salvation could only come in the form of base self-denigration, demonstration of good works, and promise to break with past behavior or associations.

Outcomes were variable, ranging from strong rebuke and increased future scrutiny to expulsion from the party, followed by arrest and escalating unpleasantness resulting from that. Which is to say that during the period of the Great Terror (1937-38), a frequent outcome would be criticism-selfcriticism at the local party meeting, resolution of expulsion, arrest in the middle of the night, protracted interrogation, summary trial three months or so later, bullet in the back of the head...

I've also seen criticism-selfcriticism work very effectively at meetings of a local chapter of the post-New Left "New American Movement" (early 1980s) — in which the emphasis was on the criticism of deficiencies of the group or the meeting, with an eye to including one's own behavior in the critique. Discussion would follow and the criticisms would move around the table in an orderly manner. Same phrase for the process, but dissimilar procedure...

I digress.

In any event, Wikipedia's group maulings at the drama pages, followed by sanctions which are modifiable only through self-abasement in front of the keepers of the sacred doctrine are ominously similar to the Bad Old form of criticism-selfcriticism brought to life by The Stalin Company, Inc.

RfB

[Vigilant]

The funniest, but least productive, part of that process is the "community's" need for the banned editor's ritual self abasement to be allowed back into the fold.

This is the essence of "criticism-selfcriticism," which was pervasive in the USSR during the 1930s and also — unless I'm mistaken, it's outside my area of expertise — in China especially during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution of the 1960s.

Deviants from the norms of accepted behavior were denounced in series by their peers at a group session closely resembling the confrontational meetings arranged by the friends of alcoholics attempting to pressure them into accepting the reality of their bad behavior and its impact on others. Criticism was brutal, deeply personalized, and — much like what we see on WP — issues from the seemingly distant past were frequently dredged up to illustrate the general worthlessness of the subject. Salvation could only come in the form of base self-denigration, demonstration of good works, and promise to break with past behavior or associations.

Outcomes were variable, ranging from strong rebuke and increased future scrutiny to expulsion from the party, followed by arrest and escalating unpleasantness resulting from that. Which is to say that during the period of the Great Terror (1937-38), a frequent outcome would be criticism-selfcriticism at the local party meeting, resolution of expulsion, arrest in the middle of the night, protracted interrogation, summary trial three months or so later, bullet in the back of the head...

I've also seen criticism-selfcriticism work very effectively at meetings of a local chapter of the post-New Left "New American Movement" (early 1980s) — in which the emphasis was on the criticism of deficiencies of the group or the meeting, with an eye to including one's own behavior in the critique. Discussion would follow and the criticisms would move around the table in an orderly manner. Same phrase for the process, but dissimilar procedure...

I digress.

In any event, Wikipedia's group maulings at the drama pages, followed by sanctions which are modifiable only through self-abasement in front of the keepers of the sacred doctrine are ominously similar to the Bad Old form of criticism-selfcriticism brought to life by The Stalin Company, Inc.

RfB

Well said.

[piku]

I'm not saying that you tell your members to cut it out all together, but putting forward a statement that real life identities should only be revealed if they have a direct influence on their Wikipedia editing.

User SergeWoodzing (T-C-L) is the not really notable retired hotel manager Jacob Truedson Demitz (T-H-L), who is using that BLP for self-promotion. He was also inserting his self-published book Throne of a Thousand Years (T-H-L) as a reference in loads of articles as a source to suggest independent support for his own amateur opinions about Swedish history.

I was blocked twice on enwp for pointing out that conflict of interest. The identification is quite obvious from his contributions on Commons.

[everyking]

Turnedworm, are you going to respond to my point about outing policy only being enforced for certain editors, while others (such as Beyond my Ken) are able to get away with doing exactly the same thing Cla68 got blocked for, even when it's reported? This is an opportunity for you to show whether you legitimately care about Wikipedians' privacy, or whether you're another example of someone who only cares about rules insofar as they can be used to preserve Wikipedia's power structure. (Ignoring the issue entirely would imply it's the latter.)

Aye Cap'n. There's a lot going on in this thread, I haven't regularly used forums for a good 5-10 years so I'm sorry I missed your comments in my quick overview yesterday. I should have a bit more time today, so I will go back over and see if I've missed anything.

Inconsistency on Wikipedia is one of it's biggest problems. It goes to the very core of the way everyone thinks there - handle the problem now and damn precedent. Without a governing board, it's the community that decides everything and attitudes change over time. What's more, the community is massive and the people who affect decisions are those who are nearby at the time. I jotted down a few thoughts on contradictions one day when it really annoyed me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Worm_ ... radictions

I was focussed on civility there, but it happens everywhere. Personally, I try to be consistent - which is a start. I'll consistantly talk to people I believe are causing problems, rather than block them on sight. Unfortunately, other people are not so trigger-shy. Someone brought up the fact that blocked editors are not treated well - it's true. I've often stopped gravedancing in the past and I intend to carry on doing so. To disagree with a previous arbitrator, being blocked does not stop you being a Wikipedian.

I can't see anything regarding Beyond My Ken in this thread (feel free to PM or email me), but the deleted Mathsci diff was beyond the pale. I'm sorry to see it was ignored for so long. A few people have said, I'm fairly new to this.

I noticed today that you shut down Cla68's talk page with a note that essentially said: "We made a bad call. Please stop reminding everybody about it." You're an arbitrator, right? I have no interest in reading anything else from you, and I don't think anyone here should engage you in any kind of dialogue. I think you should follow the good example set by your fellow arbitrators and resign.

[SB_Johnny]

I noticed today that you shut down Cla68's talk page with a note that essentially said: "We made a bad call. Please stop reminding everybody about it." You're an arbitrator, right? I have no interest in reading anything else from you, and I don't think anyone here should engage you in any kind of dialogue. I think you should follow the good example set by your fellow arbitrators and resign.

Well, I certainly hope that he might "accidentally" take a sip or two of our Jimbo-juice antidote while chatting away at the bar, but I suspect you're right at this point: he's just looking to get some slumming in before he gets too old for such things.

[Randy from Boise]

I noticed today that you shut down Cla68's talk page with a note that essentially said: "We made a bad call. Please stop reminding everybody about it." You're an arbitrator, right? I have no interest in reading anything else from you, and I don't think anyone here should engage you in any kind of dialogue. I think you should follow the good example set by your fellow arbitrators and resign.

Well, I certainly hope that he might "accidentally" take a sip or two of our Jimbo-juice antidote while chatting away at the bar, but I suspect you're right at this point: he's just looking to get some slumming in before he gets too old for such things.

There is wisdom in the slogan "Assume Good Faith."

Successful reform comes from many directions simultaneously. Back to the very appropriate Soviet Communism analogy, there were "reform" and "conservative" elements even on the Central Committee of the CPSU. These top level reform-oriented oligarchs had their own particular agenda for modernization and increasing efficiency. They weren't nearly as righteous in the mission as those who were typing up and circulating illegal or unpublishable manuscripts from hand to hand. But they played their role in the end.

RfB

[tarantino]

I noticed today that you shut down Cla68's talk page with a note that essentially said: "We made a bad call. Please stop reminding everybody about it." You're an arbitrator, right? I have no interest in reading anything else from you, and I don't think anyone here should engage you in any kind of dialogue. I think you should follow the good example set by your fellow arbitrators and resign.

Well, I certainly hope that he might "accidentally" take a sip or two of our Jimbo-juice antidote while chatting away at the bar, but I suspect you're right at this point: he's just looking to get some slumming in before he gets too old for such things.

There is wisdom in the slogan "Assume Good Faith."

Successful reform comes from many directions simultaneously.

The slumming that Johnny mentions has happened time and again on WR and here. IMO, no real reform has ever been the result.

Former WR and arbcom member Steve Smith sums it up nicely:

ArbCom can occasionally do some small good in some specific dispute, but is completely unequipped to address the underlying causes of disputes, and most other aspects of Wikipedia—in particular anonymous editing and an entrenched aversion to hierarchical structure—both counteract and dwarf any good that ArbCom can do.

[Zoloft]

I noticed today that you shut down Cla68's talk page with a note that essentially said: "We made a bad call. Please stop reminding everybody about it." You're an arbitrator, right? I have no interest in reading anything else from you, and I don't think anyone here should engage you in any kind of dialogue. I think you should follow the good example set by your fellow arbitrators and resign.

Well, I certainly hope that he might "accidentally" take a sip or two of our Jimbo-juice antidote while chatting away at the bar, but I suspect you're right at this point: he's just looking to get some slumming in before he gets too old for such things.

I do believe part of the reason for that notice was to stop the grave-dancing.

[EricBarbour]

User SergeWoodzing (T-C-L) is the not really notable retired hotel manager Jacob Truedson Demitz (T-H-L), who is using that BLP for self-promotion. He was also inserting his self-published book Throne of a Thousand Years (T-H-L) as a reference in loads of articles as a source to suggest independent support for his own amateur opinions about Swedish history.

I was blocked twice on enwp for pointing out that conflict of interest. The identification is quite obvious from his contributions on Commons.

I believe this, but who is EmilEik (T-C-L)?

[piku]

User SergeWoodzing (T-C-L) is the not really notable retired hotel manager Jacob Truedson Demitz (T-H-L), who is using that BLP for self-promotion. He was also inserting his self-published book Throne of a Thousand Years (T-H-L) as a reference in loads of articles as a source to suggest independent support for his own amateur opinions about Swedish history.

I was blocked twice on enwp for pointing out that conflict of interest. The identification is quite obvious from his contributions on Commons.

I believe this, but who is EmilEik (T-C-L)?

He is a cook: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Emil_Eikner
And travel companion etc of Jacob Truedson Demitz.

[EricBarbour]

I'll throw it on the pile. SergeWoodzing has been a very persistent troll in some areas, so he's being classified as such.

[Hersch]

Just looked at it for the first time in years. It starts off like something out of a reeducation camp manual (emphasis Wikipedia's):

Talk about yourself, not others
You are blocked because of what you did, not because of what others did, even if another editor did something first. For this reason:

1. Do not complain about other people, such as editors you may have been in a conflict with, or the blocking administrator. Others' incorrect actions will not make your own inappropriate actions or responses acceptable. Any disagreements with others should be addressed through dispute resolution after you are unblocked, but your unblock request is not the place for this. The only thing that your unblock request needs to address is why you did not in fact disrupt Wikipedia or why you will no longer do so. Unblock requests that contain personal attacks or incivility against others will be declined.
2. Do not excuse what you did with what others did. Two wrongs do not make a right. An unblock request that just asks administrators to block another editor will be declined...

[Peter Damian]

This is the essence of "criticism-selfcriticism," which was pervasive in the USSR during the 1930s and also — unless I'm mistaken, it's outside my area of expertise — in China especially during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution of the 1960s.
[...]
Salvation could only come in the form of base self-denigration, demonstration of good works, and promise to break with past behavior or associations.
RfB

To me, by email from a very prominent Wikipedian indeed. "You need to separate out and finally face up to why you have been blocked, which is a different issue. If you view it through the lens of being "stonewalled" for complaints, you're missing what's really going on I'm afraid".

[SB_Johnny]

I noticed today that you shut down Cla68's talk page with a note that essentially said: "We made a bad call. Please stop reminding everybody about it." You're an arbitrator, right? I have no interest in reading anything else from you, and I don't think anyone here should engage you in any kind of dialogue. I think you should follow the good example set by your fellow arbitrators and resign.

Well, I certainly hope that he might "accidentally" take a sip or two of our Jimbo-juice antidote while chatting away at the bar, but I suspect you're right at this point: he's just looking to get some slumming in before he gets too old for such things.

I do believe part of the reason for that notice was to stop the grave-dancing.

We need a dead-pan emoticon.

[mac]

I noticed today that you shut down Cla68's talk page with a note that essentially said: "We made a bad call. Please stop reminding everybody about it." You're an arbitrator, right? I have no interest in reading anything else from you, and I don't think anyone here should engage you in any kind of dialogue. I think you should follow the good example set by your fellow arbitrators and resign.

Well, I certainly hope that he might "accidentally" take a sip or two of our Jimbo-juice antidote while chatting away at the bar, but I suspect you're right at this point: he's just looking to get some slumming in before he gets too old for such things.

I do believe part of the reason for that notice was to stop the grave-dancing.

We need a dead-pan emoticon.

[Cla68]

I noticed today that you shut down Cla68's talk page with a note that essentially said: "We made a bad call. Please stop reminding everybody about it." You're an arbitrator, right? I have no interest in reading anything else from you, and I don't think anyone here should engage you in any kind of dialogue. I think you should follow the good example set by your fellow arbitrators and resign.

Well, I certainly hope that he might "accidentally" take a sip or two of our Jimbo-juice antidote while chatting away at the bar, but I suspect you're right at this point: he's just looking to get some slumming in before he gets too old for such things.

There is wisdom in the slogan "Assume Good Faith."

Successful reform comes from many directions simultaneously.

The slumming that Johnny mentions has happened time and again on WR and here. IMO, no real reform has ever been the result.

Former WR and arbcom member Steve Smith sums it up nicely:

ArbCom can occasionally do some small good in some specific dispute, but is completely unequipped to address the underlying causes of disputes, and most other aspects of Wikipedia—in particular anonymous editing and an entrenched aversion to hierarchical structure—both counteract and dwarf any good that ArbCom can do.

Yup, addressing the symptoms rather than the core problems. Worm, how would you recommend that WP's administration resolve the problem of inconsistency in enforcing policy violations by administrators or established editors?

[Poetlister]

Worm, how would you recommend that WP's administration resolve the problem of inconsistency in enforcing policy violations by administrators or established editors?

If I were Worm, I'd say "these are usually not policy violations; they are on the contrary examples of the correct use of WP:IAR, which administrators and other trusted established editors can WP:AGF be relied on not to abuse".

[Mason]

I've stated before that of the current arbitration committee members, Worm seems to be among the more clueful and open-minded of the bunch, and I stand by that assessment.

I am curious, though, what he would make of the outing and harassment that seems to be a mainstay of COI investigations.

Cla68 and others have alluded to this before: once an editor is targeted as a person with a potential conflict of interest, they seem to become fair game, and editors are free to demand to know who they are and what their relationship is to an article subject. (I.e. to demand they "out" themselves.) And then accuse them of lying if they claim innocence. (I.e., harassment.) Why is this OK?

If the answer is "to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia", I might accept it... unless it comes from someone who also voted to bring Russavia "I'm back, bitches" on board again for another round of trolling.

[turnedworm]

The slumming that Johnny mentions has happened time and again on WR and here. IMO, no real reform has ever been the result.

Former WR and arbcom member Steve Smith sums it up nicely:

ArbCom can occasionally do some small good in some specific dispute, but is completely unequipped to address the underlying causes of disputes, and most other aspects of Wikipedia—in particular anonymous editing and an entrenched aversion to hierarchical structure—both counteract and dwarf any good that ArbCom can do.

Yup, addressing the symptoms rather than the core problems. Worm, how would you recommend that WP's administration resolve the problem of inconsistency in enforcing policy violations by administrators or established editors?

I find it interesting that Steve Smith's quote which you quoted really answers your question. Arbcom, and indeed I, am completely unequipped to address the inconsistencies across Wikipedia. I can drip-feed ideas, hope that they get picked up and things slowly improve - but in reality that will only increase the inconsistencies.

Intuitively, the best way to remove inconsistency is to document every single minutiae of each policy, and the sanction that should be applied. But that goes against the way a wiki-works. Indeed, it seems there are a lot of wikipedians who have already tried to do that, which is why we have such a bloody big rulebook. It's prohibitive to new editors starting, but that's a different problem.

I honestly don't know how we could possibly resolve inconsistency across a wiki with 4m articles, and ~30m pages. It may just be that it's one of those things we have to accept.

[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.

[turnedworm]

I've stated before that of the current arbitration committee members, Worm seems to be among the more clueful and open-minded of the bunch, and I stand by that assessment.

I am curious, though, what he would make of the outing and harassment that seems to be a mainstay of COI investigations.

Cla68 and others have alluded to this before: once an editor is targeted as a person with a potential conflict of interest, they seem to become fair game, and editors are free to demand to know who they are and what their relationship is to an article subject. (I.e. to demand they "out" themselves.) And then accuse them of lying if they claim innocence. (I.e., harassment.) Why is this OK?

If the answer is "to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia", I might accept it... unless it comes from someone who also voted to bring Russavia "I'm back, bitches" on board again for another round of trolling.

I don't consider it outing or indeed harassment. However, it is unacceptable. Conflict of interest is a legitimate issue to the integrity of the encyclopedia, but the idea is that "anyone can edit". Going at a person because they've been in email contact with the subject is just wholly unacceptable and will drive off new and good editors. I've helped a number of BLPs through OTRS, indeed recently I've worked on Flavio Briatore's article to remove inaccuracies based on email contact. The article was more negative before I started working on it, does this mean that I was editing with a conflict of interest?

I've not worked in COI exactly, I've worked with a lot of "new users" who clearly have a COI and explained the rules to them. One even turned up to a Manchester meetup. Of course people who have a conflict of interest want to edit the encyclopedia and the thing to do is work with them, explain the rules to them, show them the plain and simple conflict of interest guidelines and so on, not kick them straight off or scare them away to sneak the information in unmonitered.

[lilburne]

I find it interesting that Steve Smith's quote which you quoted really answers your question. Arbcom, and indeed I, am completely unequipped to address the inconsistencies across Wikipedia. I can drip-feed ideas, hope that they get picked up and things slowly improve - but in reality that will only increase the inconsistencies.

Alternatively one can refuse to give it aid and succour. One can disengage from giving it any veneer of respectability.

[turnedworm]

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.

[Notvelty]

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?

pmsl.

Awesome.

[SarekOfVulcan]

I'm glad to hear that contacting of homes and workplaces is not endorsed by many, but the threat of doing so is enough. I've seen a few comments like "perhaps someone should ... " and those comments are ones I feel need to be shut down. I do know of at least one instance where a person was contacted through his work email - though I don't believe his employers were contacted.

HR at PCHC once got an email from someone "attempting to contact" SarekOfVulcan, a prolific WP contributor whom they believed worked there. I told my manager that trying to win on-wiki disputes by off-wiki means was strictly frowned upon, and nothing further was said. I don't know if it was an eventual factor in their letting me go or not. I bounced the email to Arbcom, but I doubt there was anything identifying-enough for action to be taken.

Less than 10 have really been discussed here in the last 6 months. And of those almost all of them had a damn good reason why their identity was an issue.

Over on WR, there was once a thread that looked into my various affiliations, and made up some things about my wife that could have had real-world implications if the wrong person had run across them before the mods deleted the post.