Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive290

Starting Nmap 4.21ALPHA4 ( http://insecure.org ) at 2007-08-25 07:34 PDT
Interesting ports on 217.41.217.55:
Not shown: 1690 closed ports
PORT     STATE    SERVICE
21/tcp   open     ftp
22/tcp   open     ssh
111/tcp  open     rpcbind
135/tcp  filtered msrpc
136/tcp  filtered profile
137/tcp  filtered netbios-ns
138/tcp  filtered netbios-dgm
139/tcp  filtered netbios-ssn
199/tcp  open     smux
445/tcp  filtered microsoft-ds
554/tcp  open     rtsp
999/tcp  open     garcon
3128/tcp open     squid-http
7070/tcp open     realserver

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

16:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

---

I notice that User:Noroton is, once again, removing the links to MichaelMoore.com. Is this official, we've declared his website an attack site? If not, I'd like to raise this as an issue of disruptive editing, since it is my understanding the issue was that MichaelMoore.com was linking directly to THF's edit page...? This really needs to be sorted out since the war on Moore continues at Wikipedia and has little to do with building an encyclopedia. --David Shankbone 15:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's harassing THF. Fine under WP:NPA#External links. Will ^(talk) 15:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't directly now, but it did. Will ^(talk) 15:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know what your statement means: that MichaelMoore.com is now banned because he pointed out that an ideological rival edits his pages, one whose identity was never concealed? If so, I think I'll open up RfC not only about the THF name issue, but also about what is an "attack site", what are the degrees, and whether this qualifies. --David Shankbone 15:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone is aware of why it's being done (notwithstanding Noroton's personal stance on Moore), but the general consensus appears to be that this is a borderline incident and there's a strong consensus that mm.com is a) not an attack site and b) not being linked in order to attack THF. There's strong consensus that Wikipedia doesn't randomly blacklist external sites, and that's what's being done here. Noroton is fresh off a block for doing this already. Chris Cunningham 16:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The not-there talk page was attacking/harassing THF. Will 16:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What? More importantly, did you read the rationale I provided? This isn't a clear-cut case of WP:NPA#External links. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Chris Cunningham 16:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Wrong Sceptre/Will: The Moore site was seen as "harassing" THF with the inclusion of links to edit his page. There was no "attack" and there is no definition of the word attack to support the matter-of-fact post on Moore's website. Once the "harassment" via the edit links were taken down, the issue was resolved. --David Shankbone 16:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't revealing the identity and posting a picture of an anonymous editor considered an attack? Because that's all still on the Michael Moore site even now (though not plastered across the top as before). Clearly, the point of posting THF's identity and photo is intimidation, even if the specific link to edit his talk page was taken down. ATren 16:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we close this? I think Noroton is correct substantively for the reasons ATren states, and I am personally disappointed about the uneven application of Wikipedia policy, but this block against Noroton (unlike the last one) is correct procedurally. He was told by the unblocking admin not to remove the links, and he removed the links, and he got blocked. Nothing more here for administrators to intervene. THF 16:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael can have his links back when he stops attacking wikipedians, all he needs to do is take the attack of his web page. Also DavidShankBone needs to re-read WP:AGF when it concerns why people want these attacks stopped. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No one got blocked (one party was unblocked) - see rationale below -- FayssalF

---

I'll probably get blocked for blocked for this, but...

I believe that User:El_C is inappropriately editing on my talk page, threatening to block me if I continue disputing with Anonimu (talk · contribs). I doubt that El C is non-partisan in this matter, as his user page expresses sentiments to that normally seen of Anonimu.

The reason why I keep an eye on Anonimu and not his opponents is because it's better to deal with the devil you know than the devil you don't, and Anonimu had come to my attention via a friend of a friend, and I posted on ANI giving my opinion upon the 100 edits previous to that posting, and I recommended that he be blocked. Since then, he hasn't changed.

The point is that El_C is thinking too highly of the sysop bit, thinking it conveys authority, by telling me unilaterally to stop disputing or I'll be blocked, without citing a single policy or guideline as to why - in any of my disputes with Anonimu, I have stood by either multiple policies, guidelines, or a mixture of both - WP:HARASS excepts checking an editor's contributions to fix policy violation (in my most recent one with him, yesterday, NPOV, and in the most recent one regarding him, on his talk this afternoon, NPA (Nazi is a personal attack regardless of veracity)), and also prohibits intimidation and threatening of users, which I feel El_C is doing, and would prefer that if someone warned or discouraged him not to do so. Will ^(talk) 21:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As a note: saying "I'll probably get blocked for this" is being rather uncivil. So is calling Anonimu the devil. Remember to Assume Good Faith--danielfolsom 22:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) It was probably a poor choice of words, but "the devil you know than the devil you don't" is a common expression. android79 22:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't" is a common idiom and is in no way an attack on Anonimu's character. I'll concede slightly on the "I'll probably get blocked for this...", though.

Will ^(talk) 22:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, you're correct - sorry I'm not sure why i mentioned that as I'm aware of the idiom - I guess I was reading your comment a bit too fast - my mistake.--danielfolsom 22:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Err, what is the dispute about, exactly? android79 22:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Which dispute? With El C, succintly, I think that El C is threatening and intimidating me without basis. Will ^(talk) 22:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

To me it appears that sceptre is following Anonimu and involving himself in disputes Anonimu is involved in - and El_C believes that he is doing this to an extreme, saying it's "to the point where, one time, you even supported one of the tens of sockpuppets Bonaparte has unleashed against him" - however the bigger issue is whether El_C has the authority to tell Screptre (s)he is "out of his dispute, effective immediately." As to whether or not he is allowed to do that is not for me to decide--danielfolsom 22:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

About Bonaparte, yes, I did support Bonaparte's sock to get Anonimu banned, but no, I didn't know it at the time, and I provided about a dozen links showing why he should be, so it's hardly blind support of a banned user. (And by the way, I'm a he). Will ^(talk) 22:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu is currently blocked for edit-warring, so there should be no active dispute at the moment. His block log makes a convincing case that there's a serious problem, and he's prefaced his talk page with a note telling people not to bother, which isn't the most collaborative approach. That said, things have clearly reached the point where a more community-based form of dispute resolution (e.g. RfC or WP:CSN) should be considered rather than perpetuating a one-on-one dispute. MastCell ^Talk 22:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably what got El_C annoyed was me removing a thread on Anonimu's talk which called Anonimu's opponents a "hate group" and "nazi sympathisers" - both personal attacks regardless of veracity. Besides, wasn't that what Anonimu wanted, for a clean talk page? Will ^(talk) 22:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've dealt with Anonimu in the past (also blocked him before). The user is a habitual trouble user, anyone who sees his extensive block log can see this. I agree that it is unfair to threaten Will because of this, considering his clean block log the threat of a unilateral block is out of line I believe. Though I think it would be wise for you to take a breather from dealing with Anonimu for the moment.--Jersey Devil 22:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu is the target of the long term-harassment lead by Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Secondly, he did not violate the letter of 3RR. Whether he edit-warred in general to deserve a block is a separate matter on which I have no opinion at this time. I simply request more eyes keeping an eye on various open proxies, IPs, socks and trolls who attack Anonimu all the time to present him a much more of a trouble user than he is. This week only I personally removed half a dozen of false reports on Anonimu placed on this board as well as AN by Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) with concocted discussions and falsified signatures. Will Sceptre revert-warred at Anonimu's page as late as today.

I leave it up to others whether to unblock Anonimu this time. It is a matter of judgment whether his still under 3RR reverts of trolls, socks and open proxies constitutes disruption. But I ask for some sympathy towards the guy who is, no angel true enough, the subject of the harassment campaign unheard since the times of Bonny and his socks ejected user:Node_ue, also a non-angel, from Wikipedia. Just my comment on this. --Irpen 22:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Scpetre is trying to get a rise out of the user; that is not acceptable and he may be blocked for harassment if it continues. Jersey Devil has already showed himself to be one-sided in this dispute (which is why Sceptre has consistently canvassed him for his involvement), so I am opting to take his obvious sympathy with a grain of salt. Either you review all users involved in the dispute fairly (that is, review the other side, to begin with), or matters are gonna become worse and further away from resolution. Thx. El_C 22:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had no contact whatsoever from Sceptre about this. I just happened to view it while reviewing AN/I. Please remember AGF. Needless to say, I am surprised by your conduct on this matter El C. I've usually found you to be a fair admin, but your attempts to minimize my thoughts on this matter by saying that I am "one-sided" and was "canvassed" is completely out of line. I guess that is what passes as admin-to-admin discussion these days.--Jersey Devil 22:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. I did not say you have initiated contact, and these are concerned that I have, in fact, disclosed to you in the past. El_C 22:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The only reason why I've talked to Jersey about Anonimu is because he dealt with him recently. Will ^(talk) 22:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I want you to stay away from Anonimu, and most definitely refrain from reporting him on AIV, as you did yesterday. El_C 22:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree in that AIV should only be used for pure vandalism and not on POV pushing.--Jersey Devil 22:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Persistent POV pushing is vandalism (WP:VANDAL: "Though inappropriate, [POV pushing] is not vandalism in itself unless persisted in after being warned.") Will ^(talk) 22:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You are not allowed to report him for vandalism over a content dispute (in this case, whether the two-hour trial - and - followup - execution of Nicolae Ceauşescu for genocide can be termed a "kangaroo court"). But you definitely should not be following him around just to revert war; from now on, you won't. El_C 09:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If El_C has time, he would be the best person to mentor Anonimu. He is familiar with the context and has the right attitude. Mentoring Anonimu may include having to block him from time to time, proding him here and there and keep Bonny sock/meatpuppets away from him. And JD is too block-happy to deal with complex matters. Just a suggestion. --Irpen 22:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with both the suggestion and the "block-happy" claim (which is needlessly incivil). If Anonimu were to get a mentor it should be a completely indifferent third party admin.--Jersey Devil 22:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

JD, please cut on the unwarranted civility talk. This bogus civility stuff is brought about every time someone is criticized. Criticism may be "unfair" but there was no incivility in my entry whatsoever. As for the fairness I never ever heard of you before this sad incident which was self-explanatory enough. And I challenge you to find a single sign of misconduct by El_C that would make him improper for dealing with this matter. I say, the best mentor should better be aware of the history of the problem and have an immaculate reputation. That's all. --Irpen 23:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Civility isn't bogus, it's policy. Will ^(talk) 23:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL is a policy. Falsely invoking it in unrelated disputes is a bogus. And gaming WP:CIVIL is responsible for more WP trouble than Willy on the Wheels with all his socks. But this is a side issue. There is no civility issues whatsoever in my entries above. Please stay on topic and refrain from "uncivil citing of WP:CIVIL" to deflect the discussion away from the topic. The issue at hand that Anonimu needs to be contained but harassment of him (including by Will Sceptre) has got to stop NOW. --Irpen 23:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

To get back to the reporting user's opening statement, I don't know the players here or the history well enough to be able to say whether or not there is a real conflict of interest on El_C's part, but there is apparently at least a perceived COI. I think it is fine for admins to have strong political views, and to participate in discussions and articles that they are interested in. But they need to be careful to avoid using their admin tools (or threatening to) in situations that leave them open to the allegation of a COI. If a violation is beyond the pale, and the action would be unquestionably correct, that is one thing. But if there is any kind of "call" to make, and it involves a topic or users who the admin could be perceived to have a COI with, the admin should seek another uninvolved admin to take the action. I can think of a half dozen admins who generally disagree with me on political and social issues, but that I would trust to make the right call on a behavioral issue with a user. They might not do what I wanted them to do, but their involvement would certainly nudge the conflict in a more positive direction. It's a good policy to follow. It not only protects the users from possibly biased action against them, it protects the admin from COI charges, and protects the image of the project as viewed from outside. I think the suggestion of El_C mentoring is a good one. - Crockspot 23:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• I find it very hard to take Sceptre's complaint in good faith. "Probably what got El_C annoyed was me removing a thread on Anonimu's talk ... wasn't that what Anonimu wanted, for a clean talk page?" You were helping Anonimu clean his page, Sceptre..? Please don't flaunt absurdity. I've a good mind to remove these frivolities from ANI, especially after reviewing your ruleslawyering responses to El C on your page (here it is before you removed the section in question). I too urge you to cease doing anything else that is Anonimu-related, and will consider blocking you if you persist. Since you would like to see a basis in codified policy, please review Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Wikipedia is not a battleground. Bishonen | talk 23:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC).

  Your response isn't in good faith either. What I said came off in a bad tone, and that's because I'm a bit annoyed. I was seriously removing them to save Anonimu an edit - he wasn't going to read them anyway. Besides, for the fourth time I've said this "nazi sympathiser" and "hate group" are personal attacks regardless of veracity. WP:ENC and WP:BATTLE applies, frankly, more to him than me - in every single conflict with him, I've at given policies and guidelines as my reasoning. I'll admit I don't like Anonimu, yes, but I'm not reverting every edit of his, I'm only reverting inappropriate edits by him. Will ^(talk) 23:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the thing I said about a unilateral demand sticks - Only those delegated authority (ArbCom, Foundation) should exercise it - the sysop flag allows you to block, delete, protect, and automatically rollback, not give you authority. An admin can use the tools to follow process, policies, guidelines, and a few essays - for example, a persistent POV pusher on an article will be blocked to prevent the POV, a heavily vandalised page will be semi-protected to prevent the vandalism, etc, etc. An admin can't say to a user acting in good faith that they'll punish them if they do something the admin doesn't like without good reason. Such a decision is very controversial, and should be left to the community to decide whether it's appropriate. Will ^(talk) 00:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's clear you have an axe to grind against this user and that your efforts have been wholly one-sided (so much so that you have not even remotely touched on this point). If you continue following him around you will be blocked for disruption. You may appeal to the Arbitration Committee or to any "paid foundation employee" once such a block expires. I have nothing further to add to that. El_C 02:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

El_C would you mind providing some examples of Will harassing or following Anonimu? The WP:AIV diff by itself doesn't really seem as bad as you are making out to be. (Which is why I'm asking what you know that those of us unfamiliar with this issue don't which makes you sure Will is out to get Anonimu?) Anynobody 05:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

probably this one. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know much of the details about Will =/= Anonimu but a comment by Will strikes me. "Will" do you know that threatening to edit war is considered disruption? Please explain. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's much of an edit-war if you're upholding the three very basic Wikipedia policies. (NPOV, NOR, V) Will ^(talk) 12:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I did a bit of research and noted these edits on three User talk pages;

User talk:Anonimu
Sceptre/Will reverts an edit to Anonimu's talk page, three times for reasons discussed below on El Cs talk page. I personally think El C was right to restore the removed thread because I don't support editors deleting stuff from another editors talk page, but Will didn't seem to be acting in bad faith, just repeating a mistake. El C began insisting on no uncertain terms he wanted Will gone for some reason by around 12:30.
10:40 24 August
11:52 24 August
12:21 24 August

User talk:El C
Will:explains the 10:40 edit, 11:51 24 August
Will:12:18 24 August
El C:Either way, I just don't want *you* to be involved 12:32 24 August
Will:12:37 24 August.

User talk:Will
El C:Hi. what are you trying to do? 10:47 24 August
El C:User talk:Anonimu - do not revert me 12:00 24 August
El C:12:35 24 August
El C:it is *your* presence, specifically, that is not sought 12:39 24 August

I just don't want *you* to be involved and it is *your* presence, specifically, that is not sought seems needlessly rude and almost bullyish when one factors in El Cs warning to make himself scare from Anonimu's pages or face blocking. Am I missing something, or is El C bent out of shape that someone dared to revert him? Anynobody 08:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sceptre will not be allowed to follow Anonimu around from article to article anymore. That's over with. El_C 08:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing, the only example I saw where Anonimu had edited first was on Nicolae Ceauşescu, which other articles did he follow Anonimu to? Anynobody 08:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu was unblocked by El C earlier today ([9]) - while I concede that Anonimu didn't break 3RR, El C shouldn't have unblocked him himself, as he's hardly neutral in the dispute. Also, El C is still waving around the "mop gives me authority" flag - which it doesn't (WP:ADMIN). If El C wants authority, he should run for ArbCom next election. And I did say why I kept/keep an eye on Anonimu very early on in this thread - "better the devil you know...". Will ^(talk) 12:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm neutral enough to get things done; stop rulelawyering. But if you want to test my resolve, by all means follow him to the next article. El_C 12:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop using threats against other users to get your way. With regards to Sceptre, let it go for a while and cool down. Just take a wikibreak. It should also be noted that El C has involved himself in this content dispute at Talk:Nicolae Ceauşescu. [10] How could this possibly be considered a neutral party.--Jersey Devil 13:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop mischaracterizing my warnings as threats and stop empowering disruption to settle a score. Your hostility is regrettable. El_C 13:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh? I don't see how arguing on the talk page that the article should reflect scholarly consensus is in any way controversial. El_C 13:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. This thread doesn't read well for El C. El C, it certainly looks like you've hit a point where you're way to involved in this at a personal, grudge-holding emotional level to continue to be the admin monitoring this situation. Your ultimatums are ridiculous. Do what I say, or I'll block you, when dealing with a ridiculously bad editor and a good editor trying to prevent damage to the project, looks like you've got other reasons to hate Sceptre. As JD says above, take a wikibreak, and let other admins handle this. I woke up and logged on, read this, and you're not at all neutral in this matter anymore in my eyes. Can't help but note that your response to the complaint, as he predicted, is to try to block the complainant(complaintant?whatever). Finally, saying 'I just don't want YOU involved' certainly sounds unduly hostile and singling ONE editor out. Please follow JD's advice, and pass this off to another capable editor, and go cool off. ThuranX 15:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well about the wikibreak advice I was referring to Sceptre but you're probably right in that it should also apply to El C. This has gotten out of hand and the best thing now would be for both El C and Sceptre to try to cool down a bit and take a short wikibreak.--Jersey Devil 15:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going anywhere; certainly not on account of the superficial reading of someone as notoriously abusive as ThuranX (his ANI attacks are to known both for their lengths as for their venom). Take it to arbitration, if you like. El_C 17:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

El C's approach to the problem should be commended. Will should be advised to stop following Anonimu and endlessly complaining about his activities on this page and elsewhere. I suggest archiving this meaningless thread that distracts folks from more urgent issues. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, me leaving the project for any length of time would make many people happy, but in light of the scope of the work I do, it probably would not be in the interest of the project. But if JD, whose administrative conduct I'm calling into question in this case, wishes to perpetuate this thread, well, that's his prerogative. Granted, it does slow me down elsewhere, somewhat. El_C 18:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, now that this went far way from our DR procedures i must say that since Anonimu is unblocked even if he was edit warring, Will was not blocked even if he was following Anonimu and edit warring and El C would not take any wikibreak even if he threatens sometimes more than necessary, nor anyone else would take a break, i recommend that this issue would or SHOULD follow the DR policy. Just a friendly note. The 3 of you are well aware of the policies so there's no admin advice to offer you here, except the DR process, or any admin intervention would be needed unless some admin would make of this incident a big headline at the ANI. Archiving... -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another controversy caused by El C

I made a neutral comment on WP:AN and EL-C reverted it. Why is he so threatened by such a benign comment. It concerned TJSpyke where it was proposed to unban him and force multiple confessions from him. I said that the user should make promises to behave but that forced confessions shouldn't be required.

What is the fuss about this.

Like the original poster of this thread, who said that they expect to be blocked, I think I will be blocked unfairly just for making an innocent statement which no man with logical beliefs should feel challenged. This is why I came to Canada, so that I could speak my mind unlike in some countries. SanjayPatelofCanada 05:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: if El_C and other admin read this, say ok, and move on without the desire to retaliate and inflict pain, this will show that they are men of good character. El_C, you can redeem yourself by doing just that. SanjayPatelofCanada 05:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Your edit seemed like vandalism/provocation, was reverted once by myself, twice by another admin; he's the one who blocked you, not me. El_C 08:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Per the section "proposal" below. Discussion has become counter-productive of what was to be discussed here. The issue was SlimVirgin using an alternate account, the solution is undetermined and can never be by this thread, and the fact nothing needs immediate administrator attention. Regards, — Moe ε 16:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Since Thatcher has acted on my "inclination" [19] and re-opened the discussion, let me give the following preamble. As Thatcher notes below the Arbitration Committee is discussing the issues involved here, and as El_C points out below out the ArbCom mailing list is available to any editor who wants to make their views known to the Committee more privately. We welcome and encourage any thoughts any editor might have on these issue. But we should all understand that the issues involved here are not solely for the ArbCom to decide. In most respects, it is ultimately the community which has the responsibility of deciding how things work around here. And that deciding is generally best done on-Wiki. To that end discussions like this can be helpful, however we need to conduct any discussions with great care. SlimVirgin and Jayjg are long-time well respected editors who have made many valuable contributions to our encyclopedia. They deserve to be treated with generous assumptions of good faith and respect.

For completeness sake I've restored the following two comments which were dleted by Thatcher when he re-opened the discussion:

Folks, the Arbitration Committee's mailing list is that-a-way. Those who wish for drama and public spectacle, there are plenty of off-wiki venues. El_C 03:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's chill out for a bit. ArbCom knows about both allegations (sockpuppets and misuse of oversight). This is not going to be solved immediately, and failure to solve it immediately and publicly does not automatically mean there will be a coverup. Assuming that we don't actually want to run SlimVirgin or Jayjg off the project, let's take a break on this and let the people we elected to be responsible for this sort of thing talk about it for a while. Hopefully they will make a public statement; in the meantime, archive pretty please? Thatcher131 04:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Paul August ☎ 06:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I'll present this news briefly, without much editorializing. I'll leave it up to others to figure out what this all means, and what our response should be to this abuse of our trust. Well-known administrator SlimVirgin has been caught red-handed. She used a sockpuppet by the name of Sweet Blue Water to sway discussion on a 9/11 article (no conspiracy theories please). I have blocked the sock indefinitely, per standard practice for abusive sockpuppets. I have not blocked SlimVirgin because this incident took place awhile ago. There are some things we do not know, such as: is SlimVirgin still using sockpuppets? If so, what should we do about it? More generally, as a community, how we should we respond to these actions taken by one of our own administrators? --Cyde Weys 00:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This user hasnt made any edits[20]. Do we know Slim is using/has used socks? cos its news to me and these are serious accusations without even a diff to back them up re a highly respected admin. I suggest you give us some solid evidence or withdraw your complaint, SqueakBox 00:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That's because Mr. Weys made a typo. He meant just "Sweet Blue Water" -- [21]. MessedRocker (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, read the attached page. It's obviously written by a person with an axe to grind.. but the evidence is compelling.--Gmaxwell 00:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that is Sweet Blue Water (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). I await (a) the check user and (b) the evidence. To be honest if this were true its a case for arbcom at the least, we cant dse Slim blocked on the basis of an AM/I report, SqueakBox 00:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Cyde, It's a good think that you didn't block Sarah: the edits were two years ago. If it's all true but there isn't any evidence of more recent misdeeds, then so what? We've all made bad judgment calls.

What is a little more disappointing is the overuse/misuse of oversight. I pointed out that the early uses of oversight by Jay were questionable which resulted in Brion temporally removing his permission until it was investigated. I think arbcom eventually decided the oversights were okay, and in any case he was given the permission back... Seeing the edits there I can see how they could be argued to be personally identifiable, which is something I couldn't figure out when I first complained about the possible overuse of oversight because I was unaware of the IP and the other account. But still it seems that the ultimate decision to allow Jay to aggressively oversight Sarah's edits was an error. Ultimately it did nothing to improve her privacy, it may have hidden some abusive actions, and it has called our honesty into question. --Gmaxwell 00:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I was going to remove this thread thinking it was just a random editor with a grudge. Seeing as it's Cyde, I relented. I think good faith should be applied and it should be remembered that Shaw is a big ISP. That, and that was two years ago, so I think we should assume that she's not doing it now (but she may and probably has in the past) Will ^(talk) 00:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but I didn't make any bad judgment calls that were nearly as egregious as abusing sockpuppets. I don't think there is a "statute of limitations" on abusive sockpuppetry. I think it speaks directly to one's character. Now maybe if I see an apology to the community my stance might be softened a little bit. --Cyde Weys 00:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of fucked up to say, Cyde. Wikipedia is neutral, and shouldn't really care if someone is sorry or not, only that they are not doing it anymore. -- Ned Scott 06:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that they haven't done it anymore. How do we know that she wasn't socking the last three years? -Nodekeeper 14:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(looking through the edits) The claim that there was 3RR on the Tsunami edits is incorrect; there were two very different edits, and only two of them; even if it's same account or sockpuppetry it wasn't abusive. (Still looking at the rest). Georgewilliamherbert 00:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I'm not working off the old oversight-free dataset, but Judd Bagley didn't provide specifics on what got oversighted in there. Georgewilliamherbert 00:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There were two votes, one from each account (plus misc comments from SV) on the Featured Article Candidates discussion. That would be a violation of WP:SOCK if the two accounts are in fact the same person. (still reviewing the other 3) Georgewilliamherbert 01:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The (non-oversighted) edits by both accounts to September 11, 2001 attacks were essentially just copyedit cleanups; the one edit by Sweet Blue Water was a vandal revert of a claim that a US fighter jet shot down TWA Flight 93. That claim was added by an IP and then taken out by SBW immediately. None of the edits appear to be content/controversial for several days on either side, and the combination of them is still just maintenance work. Nothing wrong here. Georgewilliamherbert 01:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk page edit is commenting to that IP about it. Nothing wrong there. Georgewilliamherbert 01:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

...and the SBW edit to British English is related to but not identical to any edits SV was making prior to SBW editing. Definitely no 3RR; time spread out over roughly a week. No sign of abuse with this, either.

• Comment - Only 1 of these Sweet Blue Water edits appears to actually meet our WP:SOCK abusive sockpuppetry definition, or any other reasonable definition of abuse. The vote is, if SBW == SV, a violation. The others don't meet any of the SOCK criteria for abuse. Georgewilliamherbert 01:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As to the accuracy of the allegation, I'm not going to determine whether I believe this based on the evidence from some website I've never heard of. I'm going to do it based on things right here on the wiki, like a familiar quotation. I think I've seen it before. Picaroon (t) 00:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That sort of activity is only "abuse" if the peons do it... if a powerful clique member like Slim does it, it's perfectly fine, and the use of oversight by her friends to cover it up is also perfectly fine... but anybody who exposes it and tries to tell anybody is engaging in personal attacks and running an Attack Site. That's the way things work around here. *Dan T.* 00:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(MEC)I'm concerned by the sockpuppetry, but that was years ago, and in the absence of new problems we generally forgive such mistakes after such a long time. (Not that we shouldn't look closely for new evidence.) I am a bit concerned now by an odd pattern I noticed in discussion at WT:NOP, where SlimVirgin vehemently asserted as fact that there were indeed people who were operating more than one admin account, but declined to elaborate or provide evidence even upon being asked repeatedly how she possibly could be so sure. However, I was also very concerned to notice that she had not been notified of this discussion, and have corrected that. I certainly believe she has every right to tell her side of the story here. However, aside from that, I am very concerned to see that type of use of oversight. Almost all of us have accidentally edited while logged out at some point or another in a way which makes clear who it was. I would bet you that if the vast majority of editors in that situation requested oversight of that mistake they would be declined. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Could we CheckUser SlimVirgin, or would that be fishing? (Come up with an answer independent of the fact that this is SlimVirgin.) MessedRocker (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If the alleged sockpuppetry was two years ago, what would be the point? Is there any legitimate reason to punish someone for something from so long ago? --B 00:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The point of the CheckUser would be to see if she is still doing it. MessedRocker (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There are legitimate uses of socks, and if I took as much sustained abuse as she did, I would use them too for certain classes of edits. - Crockspot 00:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Including double voting? Please, lets not make the mistake of treating this as no big deal. This is a very serious charge and it is meticulously documented. It needs to be addressed, not swept under the rug. ATren 01:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering that this is coming from an off-wiki blog, and as GWH has already found one untruthful spin, and this is going on three years ago, I am not all agog. - Crockspot 00:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

an objective look at the details given above paints a pretty clear picture - but the age of the edits, and a dollop of common sense might just mean that this doesn't matter that much. I think the damage of the drama of this discussion is greater than any benefit to wikipedia - i think we're in danger of being indulgent to hand wave. If Slim used a sock a couple of years ago, it doesn't matter much to me.... Purples 00:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's more evidence, as if any were needed, of the perniciousness of the idiotic pseudo-policy about linking to so-called "attack sites" that a Clique Member is trying frantically to get rid of the above link with significant evidence in this case. *Dan T.* 00:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Lay off it Dan. There is no need for the histrionics here. No one supports a genuine abuse of oversight... even for a card carrying cabalist like Sarah. She does deserve our defense against trolls who are out to harm her, but defense doesn't extend to misleading the public or lying. We'll get it all sorted out. There is no need for a witch hunt on any side of this. The evidence presented clearly shows a privacy interest in using oversight against the evidence connecting the accounts, because her IP was disclosed. It appears that the end result, however, wasn't good.--Gmaxwell 01:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, an edit war. The link should not be posted on this page. It attacks at least two individuals. If you really want to read it, get it out of the history. - Crockspot 01:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous, that link is necessary for the discussion: Remember that WP:BADSITES IS NOT POLICY. Viridae^Talk 01:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA#External links is a core policy. - Crockspot 01:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thios isnt a personal attack, as is QUITE clear, so that policy doesn't apply. Viridae^Talk 01:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The blog was an attack on two individuals. I see there is a different link, which may not be an attack. - Crockspot 01:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It was not however being used to attack someone, it was being used as evidence in a discussion, how are you missing the distinction? How about I put it a bit more clearly for you: This thread =/= personal attack. Questionable link == needed for the non personal attack thread. Use of link =/= personal attack. NPA =/= applicable. Comprende? Viridae^Talk 01:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The evidence was presented in the form of a personal attack, with commentary that has been proven to be less than accurate. You'll notice that the blog is not linked above any more. I have no problem with raw evidence. - Crockspot 01:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It was presented in the same way the current link is presenting it, + commentary. And who cares? It was the evidence that it was beind used for? Cyde did not start this thread to try and attack anyone, he was using the link as evidence. Any way it is pointless arguing about this any further, the original link is removed, but the evidence stays the same. I am glad you are "allowing" allowing this one, because the consensus was quite clearly not in your favour (that it was a personal attack) and you had way blown 3rr. Viridae^Talk 02:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

How is evidence of sockpuppetry a "personal attack"? *Dan T.* 01:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The new link is probably fine. The first blog link was a personal attack on SV and JJG. - Crockspot 01:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It had a few paragraphs of criticism along with the evidence... so is criticism a "personal attack" now? *Dan T.* 01:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As the editor who initially forked the contested POV "attack sites" content from BADSITES over to WP:NPA: [22], I must say I do regret being the one responsible for extending that controversy beyond its reasonable life. Seems if we had left it at BADSITES, it may have been killed entirely. One of my lasting "gifts" to WP, I suppose. It seemed like a good idea at the time. When I did it I thought it would be seen as clearly inconsistent with the other, more rationally worded material already on NPA, and an attempt would be made to either kill it or move it into compliance with the rest of the policy. No such luck. Oh well. My apologies to all who've fussed over or suffered over this, and to others I hope they enjoy their sense of empowerment.—AL ^FOCUS! 02:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The contributions of Sweet Blue Water (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) shows that the user has very few edits and does not engage in edit-warring (which is the main purpose of creating sockpuppets). In fact, most of the edits are to the user's own page. So, I think this is an overally very minor case letting aside that it is from two years ago. This was all said assuming that Sweet Blue Water is SlimVirgin. --Aminz 01:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but from what I see, the evidence is shaky at best. It says on there that the edit was made by a dynamic IP. Even though it was on the same ranges SlimVirgin used, we have no proof it was her on there. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

My comment was based on the assumption that they are the same person and mentioned that even then, it seems minor. --Aminz 01:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nwwaew - he says he knows only the first four numbers of Slim's IP - and yet he would obviously assume any ip with those first four numbers would be Slim - and that IP is the only tool used to draw Slim to Sweet Blue ... I think the case isn't certain enough to do anything - and is too far in the past to do a checkuser.--danielfolsom 01:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Not just the ip - common editing - editing the same articles, and use of the same poem in their respective userpages. (look up a bit).Viridae^Talk 01:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

But again, have we got proof it was the same person editing? For all we know, it could be an impersonator setting up SlimVirgin. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Most proof in sockpuppet cases is circumstantial - as is this. A checkuser probobly would have come back as Plausible - or whatever language they use, given we know they edit from the same IP range. Viridae^Talk 01:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

In this case the evidence isn't the author of the document 'knowing' the IP.. the evidence is the content of the now oversighted edits. --Gmaxwell 01:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

But the biggest question is: who cares? SlimVirgin has been a great editor for a while - and I don't think anyone in their right mind is about to propose doing a checkuser and blocking him/her for something (s)he did in his/her (i hate how there's not a non-gender specific third person singular pronoun) first year.--danielfolsom 01:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but the involvement of oversight is a major concern it appears that oversight was unintentionally used in a manner which covered up some less than perfect activities. --Gmaxwell 01:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If that off-site post is correct, how did the history of those deleted edits make their way off Wikipedia and onto that Web site? I thought only an admin had the tools to do that. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

They found an old database dump from prior to the edits being oversighted, (and actually much prior to that, since they were deleted months before being oversighted). --Gmaxwell —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:47, August 25, 2007 (UTC).

(ec)Not deleted, oversighted. Its from a database dump from before the oversighting and compared to a dump post oversighting. Viridae^Talk 01:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read my comment. Many (all?) of the oversighted edits in question were deleted months before we had oversight. Once we got oversight they were deleted. As a result they were not in the last dump right before oversight. If you'd like a copy to look for yourself I can give you that. They used an even older dump from before the edits were deleted. I don't have a copy of that. --Gmaxwell 01:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but who did the deleting? Wer know who he oversighting was done by, who did the deleting? Viridae^Talk 01:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Based on this bit of precedent, I would have assumed Musical Linguist did the deleting, but in the case of the IP edits in question, it doesn't appear to have been her. --Jim Larry 02:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I didn't look for the IPs. I looked for the Slimv edits ages ago right when they were oversighted because I was trying to figure out if the oversight tool was being overused. I'll see if I have the IP edits. --Gmaxwell 02:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Slim wasn't even an admin in 2004. All this is insignificant ancient history. I really don't think we should desysop someone for something done before they were a sysop.Rlevse 02:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As with many scandals, the attempts to cover it up are of greater concern than the original act itself. *Dan T.* 02:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If there have been attempts to cover this up, especially with oversight privileges, then this should probably go to the ArbCom for further review. --Coredesat 02:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Rlevse, This happened the year before Slim became an admin. I think if there is anything to look at here, the focus should be on issues relating to use of oversight, not whether or not someone used a sock two years ago. Sarah 02:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

A lot of what I've read in this section is highly hypocritical. – Chacor 02:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2. Response

I'm disappointed that Cyde didn't e-mail me to ask me about this before posting publicly. I won't give a detailed response here, partly for reasons of privacy and partly because I'm not willing to make WordBomb's day for him. I'm happy to give a full explanation to every Wikipedian I know and trust who e-mails me asking for one. And please do e-mail if you want to know more; I definitely won't take it as an accusation. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to the Response

Apologies if this sounds harsh, SV.. but private explanations to people you know and trust aren't really conducive to fixing this issue, which is what we all want. Anything that smacks of secrecy and hiding just fuels the people attacking you. All of us probably aren't looking for long explanations or anything similar, just the answer to. "Did you use the account mentioned above", and "Have you used any account other then your main one to edit Wikipedia in any way". Thank you for considering my request. SirFozzie 02:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

In SV's defense, she in a situation that very few other Wikipedian's are in (or can even fully appreciate) and thus I think we should permit her the courtesy of offering her account in privacy, at least in the first instance. She knows, and I'm sure trusts, a great number of Wikipedians, not all of whom are in the oft alleged cabal. Rockpocket 02:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I can understand that, Rockpocket, but I really think it doesn't help the situation that we're in for it to be hidden from the public eye. A quote from Louis Brandeis comes to mind. The best way to prevent the situation is to stop it from the get-go, in my eye. *shrugs* figured I'd at least make the request. SirFozzie 02:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

SirFozzie, all I can do is e-mail you the explanation. You may or may not find it sufficient, but I think you will. I'm still looking at the diffs myself, but I'll send something to you this evening. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Given this happened years ago and the passing of more recent events such as the recent DB attempt at outing I endorse that she has no case to answer here and remains one of our best admins (being controversial adds to that IMHO), SqueakBox 02:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As it stands it looks like the accusations that oversight has been used to hide abusive behavior may have some degree of merit. Although Sarah's actions are old enough to be uninteresting, as Dan pointed out above, the possible appearance of coverup is very interesting and important and should be fully resolved. We can do the most to hurt the trolls by making sure we're so far above board that there is nothing sane to criticize us for. --Gmaxwell 02:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia Review, on WP:ANI. It's difficult to envision this place sinking any lower, but expect the unexpected. El_C 02:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything that anyone would like to accomplish here? If not, I suggest marking it resolved/closed. Even if the "allegations" are true, I don't think anyone would seriously suggest taking any kind of punitive preventative action against SV based on something so old. So if there's nothing here other than drama ... --B 02:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

We need to resolve if oversight was actually used to hide embarrassing edits. If so we need to resolve if this was an intentional abuse, or accidental careless. We need to determine the Arbitration committee has violated our trust by endorsing these actions, tacitly or explicitly. ... and in order to get there I think we need to know the truth about the suspected sock. If it's true, we can forgive, and move on to the important issues... before they manage to end up in the press. --Gmaxwell 02:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that if oversight was used incorrectly, that's a serious abuse ... but since very few people have access to those records, there is nothing that can be decided here. 99% of us have no ability to investigate it. --B 02:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If the allegations are true, then it will be, at least to me, a severe breach of trust that Wikipedia places in its admins, and I would be in the forefront of any folks calling for action to be taken. Not to mention that the hurried closure/archiving would do more to convince folks that there IS fire to this smoke then anything. SirFozzie 02:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What action would you recommend? And why does everyone keep saying admins - do all admins have oversight abilities?--danielfolsom 02:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's like checkuser, only a few can do it. Georgewilliamherbert 02:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok - so it's not some admin conspiracy - everyone turn down your cabal sirens. Even if the edits were not honestly erased (which is a possibility) - it looks like an isolated event from two years ago. I just don't see this going anywhere.--danielfolsom 02:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There are two separate issues. The only thing that anyone outside of a very small number of users with oversight privileges can make any kind of speculation/determination about is whether SlimVirgin engaged in abusive sockpuppetry. That's a separate issue from whether or not someone improperly oversighted her edits. In the case of the former, nobody is seriously contemplating punishing her so there's nothing to discuss. In the case of the latter - unquestionably a very serious issue that should be dealt with decisively, we have no ability to make a determination and need to rely on those who have access to the logs to tell us what the determination is ... so again, there is nothing to discuss here. --B 02:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Except it's already been before Arbcom and it appears that they failed us. When oversight was first introduced the logs were public. I noticed Jayjg's mass over-sighting of seemingly harmless edits like spelling corrections with an summary of "pi". I brought the issue up with Brion, who thought it looked odd so he temporally removed oversight from Jayjg. [23]. Arbcom looked at the issue, and apparently decided that it was all okay. Jay's access was restored, the revisions stayed oversighted, and he continued mass over-sighting old edits like these. I trusted then. Having seen the evidence I think it would be unwise to extend the same trust again. --Gmaxwell 03:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Best not to assume malice, I suspect; nobody but the obsessive had the time or inclination to pore through things and find these apparent connections. I can't speak for other arbitrators, but I did examine (some of) these oversights and saw nothing that indicated sockpuppetry. I found the concern for secrecy possibly excessive but justified in terms of the abuse SlimVirgin was on the receiving end of. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3. Comments

I make no comments about the reliability of the allegations, but want to state strongly that Cyde's handling of this has been extremely inappropriate and irresponsible. Although I have forgotten the names of the two accounts, I saw a few months ago that some administrator was caught sockpuppeting through some user check, and that the ArbCom several times asked him to email them. When he refused to provide any explanation in private, he was desysopped, and I think the ArbCom gave an explanation to the community. But he was first afforded the chance to explain himself privately to the Committee. Similarly, I believe there was some case last year where some administrator unprotected a page and then edited it with a sockpuppet, and as far as I know (though I'm not aware of the full details), he was given ample opportunity to discuss the matter privately with the committee before the community was made aware of the matter. I am sure there have been other, similar cases; I am not aware of any case where an administrator has been discovered to be using sockpuppets, and has been immediately blocked, and the offence publicised, with no effort to deal with the matter privately first.

If Cyde had credible evidence of serious wrongdoing from SlimVirgin from two years back, he should have brought the matter privately to the attention of Jimbo and the Arbitration Committee. (It will not be surprising if they were already aware of it, and if they were already discussing the matter privately with SlimVirgin.) Or he should at least have emailed her to ask for an explanation, taking it privately to the ArbCom if she failed to provide an explanation that he found reasonable.

The fact that the evidence comes from one whose credibility is dubious, that it was a dynamic IP, that people can share IPs, and that the account had stopped editing over around two years ago, were all indications that there was no urgency in blocking. And since other administrators who have been found guilty of wrongdoing were afforded the dignity of a chance to explain themselves privately to ArbCom before being publicly humiliated, on what grounds did Cyde decide that SlimVirgin was deserving of less sensitivity and discretion?

Even if we didn't have a precedent of allowing established and respected editors suspected of some wrongdoing a chance to explain themselves privately before taking action, a little bit of humility would have told Cyde that he should wait and discuss it privately with someone more senior. Blocking immediately, without checking to see if this dynamic IP could possibly have been used by someone else, and then dramatically announcing here that she had been "caught red handed", as well as linking to a site that specialises in violating the privacy of our editors (and harvesting their IPs in an effort to trace their locations), and edit warring to keep that link, showed an appalling irresponsibility, immaturity, and insensitivity. And that applies regardless of whether SlimVirgin is innocent or guilty. This thread should never have been started. Similar cases have always been dealt with discreetly, with the ArbCom making an announcement only at the end of their investigations, if they found it appropriate to make one at all. ElinorD (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea the Sarah was blocked? She wasn't. It would be foolish to block her now, and that seems to be the consensus here.

At this point it appears that my error in trusting the judgment of Arbcom to review the initial mass over-sighting of Jay was an error. Virtually every time I've worked with arbcom to quietly resolve an issue their response has been ultimately disappointing. --Gmaxwell 02:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Translation: Let the clique "resolve" the issue by secret back-room discussions ending in shoving the whole thing under the rug. It's only non-clique-connected peons that get publicly humiliated for their real or imagined offenses. *Dan T.* 02:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

While I STRONGLY disagree with the words above, I do agree with the spirit of what dtobias's is aaying. This is something that needs to be out in the open, for the good of Wikipedia (and before you ask, "How would you feel if YOU were under the same microscope".. I am already listed on HiveMind, with all my personal info posted, which I'm not exactly happy about, but figure there's not much I can do about it.. (I do find it funny they have a wrong picture for me, however). SirFozzie 03:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I was on Brandt's (old) Hivemind page too, and on one of Jeff Merkey's attack pages at one point. I responded by laughing at those guys, not by trying to suppress all mention of them. *Dan T.* 03:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Archive I think it would be best if perceived oversight misuse was is brought before Arb. The sockpuppet issue, however, is stale. Any action on that now, would be punitive. I would suggest appropriately placing the archive templates here. Regards, Navou ^banter 02:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• I oppose. In my mind the only real risk here is that this material somewhat validates the star-chamber accusations about the use of oversight. We can't solve justified accusations of secrecy and coverups by resolving matters in secret. --Gmaxwell 03:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. I was referring to this block. An account that hasn't edited for about two years does not need to be blocked so urgently that there's no time for private discussion with the suspect or the ArbCom. The evidence for the sockpuppetry seems to be that a dynamic IP which Slim is believed (okay, I'll say "known") to have used on a small number of occasions made an answer to a question which had been asked of Sweet Blue Water. It's certainly not conclusive. And the indelible block log mentions Slim, and accuses her of abuse. ElinorD (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Elinor here. The blocking of an account that was inactive for 2 years under relatively shady evidence was done a bit haphazardly. — Moe ε 03:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why El insists on closing a live discussion and points editors off Wikipedia (the ArbCom mailing list) to talk about an on-Wiki problem. RxS 03:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What is there that can be accomplished? Even if we presuppose that Jayjg's oversights were abusive and that Arbcom is engaging in a conspiracy to ignore them, what would we be able to do here, other than sound off our righteous indignation? I have nothing but respect for Gmaxwell, but I don't see what there is that we have the power to do here. --B 03:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If the issue involves Oversight, there is nothing us regular admins can practically do about it. If there is to be any investigation into misuse of oversight, it needs to be done on a higher level, either ArbCom or the Foundation directly. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Well, any change starts with sounding off righteous indignation. Right now, I don't even know if there's cause for that. I'll ask SV for what she has to say, as I do like to hear both sides of the story, and her case is an exceptional one. If it's obvious from what she says that things aren't what they seem, and no wrong has been done, I'll shut my mouth. But really, what does anyone do on ANI but express indignation, righteous or otherwise? That's how things get brought to light and hashed out. But let's say at some point an Arbitrator, or even several of them, were involved in deliberate wrongdoing. Well, there are higher authorities than the ArbCom, and getting them involved would start with widespread expression of righteous indignation. We don't need any back-room crap going on. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe nothing, but I'm not crazy about a single editor closing a section when it's live and there's an objection. If more editors feel the same way then close away. Closing such a high profile section should be a little more consensual, that's all. RxS 04:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the section should have been closed but the closing note was needlessly hostile [24] as was the response on SirFozzie's talk page following the short revert war on here over the close. [25]--Jersey Devil 04:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

ElinorD was guilty of the understatement of the year when she said that the credibility of the source of this allegation is "in doubt." For the record, SlimVirgin was targeted by the Director of Communications of an Internet company that doesn't like the way its article is being handled, and blames Slim.

This person has gotten a lot of publicity, and recently had the charming distinction of harassing a teenager that he didn't like. He did that right here on Wikipedia. The teenager operates an AOL blog that criticized his company.

Earlier he targeted a mortgage banker who said tewwible blue-meaan things about his boss man! That was publicized in the NY Post. He has also bestowed all kinds of marvelous publicity on his company in the New York Times and Bloomberg. The latter devoted an entire article to his "slimy strategy."

Just so you know. I mean, I don't want to spoil the fun, but if you are going to spread excrement you might as well know where it came from. Anyone who cares can email me for links to some of the publicity this professional p.r. man has bestowed upon his company. Oh and I almost forgot to mention that he was hired by his company to run a wiki in competition with Wikipedia.--Mantanmoreland 04:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(response to ElinorD's initial observations)Have you discussed with Cyde whether he has attempted to bring this matter to the attention any other person/body prior to posting here? If it is mentioned somewhere earlier/later I may well have missed it. I realise that he did not contact Slim Virgin, by her response, but with the implications that oversight has been previously applied in this or related matters it might be considered an excuse (if slightly paranoid). Otherwise, it is just an oversight (sic) which shouldn't detract from the content. Finally, I find the comment

"...little bit of humility would have told Cyde that he should wait and discuss it privately with someone more senior..."

a little perplexing. Cyde has been editing since 2003; who is more senior that isn't part of ArbCom, the Foundation, or Jimbo himself? This leads me back to my original point - where is there any evidence that Cyde has not already used more "private" channels regarding this matter? LessHeard vanU 08:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 4. Comments Mark 2

By request of Paul August, who believes that civil discussion is beneficial, I have reverted my previous close of this topic. In the spirit of civil discourse, I offer the following comments:

1. A two year old instance of sock puppetry on one topic over a span of a day or two is no big deal.
2. SlimVirgin truly is the target of viscious stalkers, one of whom may have been responsible for this little piece of detective work. It is right and good to take reasonable steps to protect editors and admins' privacy.
3. Oversighting Slim's accidental use of her IP address had the additional effect of oversighting evidence of minor sockpuppetry, making it look like a coverup when there probably wasn't one. Sadly, this case proves that even oversight is not perfect privacy protection, and when an editor accidentally gives away their IP, recalling that error is like trying to stuff the smoke back into a lit match.
4. Overly aggressive use of oversight by Jayjg was brought up privately as an issue when oversight was first instituted, but the concerns were apparently dismissed. This should be looked into again.
5. Oversight is a powerful tool with no documented oversight of its use. Checkuser has a log so that other checkusers can see if someone is running abusive checks, and checkuser has an ombudsman directly answerable to the Foundation. Oversight has neither, because who would object to hiding information? But some people do object to hiding information, so it is important to have some mechanism for Oversighters to check each other's work (either a log or the ability to see oversighted edits), and a mechanism to deal with possible abuse, and to document these mechanisms (although by it's nature it can't be transparent).

I hope for some public and reasonably (given the concerns above) transparent resolution to this situation. Not immediately, surely, but soonish. Thatcher131 05:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see the preamble I've added to the beginning of this discussion. Paul August ☎ 06:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to ensure oversight isn't abused (not that it has been)? If so, then it needs to be implemented, now.--MONGO 05:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Further, I concur...we are discussing edits made long before Slim became an admin even and they were very few, so this seems to be little more than a smear campaign overall.--MONGO 05:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

For anyone unaware of this, there is a log—visible only to those with the oversight permission, obviously—that contains a record of all oversight actions and provides access to the content of all oversighted revisions. Kirill 05:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, then if there are ways for those granted oversight ability to check each other, then that seems to be adequate. I did only think that developers had this ability, so thanks for the clarification.--MONGO 05:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: to MONGO, the oversight policy says stewards can remove the flag for abuse, but the stewards don't have oversight, so how would they know? Or Arbcom can remove the flag.

Re: to Kirill, unless we non-oversighters spot something at just the right time, we have no idea oversight was ever used. Do you routinely check each other? Is oversight ever used in situations where the oversighter should not delete due to some kind of involvement? Thatcher131 05:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As a practical matter, stewards can give themselves any flag they need. Kirill 06:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, one point needs to be made crystal clear. Re your point two ("may have been responsible") this piece of so-called detective work was the product of one of the most vicious stalkers ever to hit Wikipedia. There is no doubt about it, as it is admitted proudly, and his work is (lately) signed with his name. This is not some Internet hijinks but a real-world smear campaign. Wikipedia is just one of many venues for his professional p.r. work. --Mantanmoreland 05:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Important but not grounds to wish the whole thing away. If the village bully tells you your fly is open and you feel a draft in your boxers, better check your zipper anyway. The basic facts are confirmed by User:Gmaxwell who was concerned months ago about possible overly aggressive use of oversight. Frankly, this shit was going to hit the fan sooner or later. If, for example, SlimVirgin had admitted what the trolls have alleged all along, all but the trolls would have seen how minor and pointless it really was. Or, SlimVirgin could have abandoned the account in 2004 when she realized she had exposed her IP. Instead there has been a 3 year campaign to hide something which, due to google caches and data dumps, could never really be hidden, giving the appearance of a coverup that was much bigger than the underlying alleged conflict of interest ever should have been. I don't begrudge Slim's decision to try and keep her good name and protect her privacy, but like I said above, it was like trying to stuff the smoke back into a match. Thatcher131 05:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand that your concern is that, about the only people who use oversight and watch it are basically the arbitrators and a few former ones...but that is more than 20 people. So is this a concern that these folks also need to be watched and if the stewarts and developers can't or won't, then who will?--MONGO 05:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but this is totally ridiculous. The word "witchhunt" comes to mind. For whatever reason, SlimVirgin is a major target on Wikipedia. She always has been. This was 2 years ago. If she was still using socks, I'd see the arguments here, but there is no evidence that she is. The thing is. People make mistakes. As long as she isn't using them now, I just don't see the issue here. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me say that I have made more than one sockpuppeteer furious at me, and I have left enough clues that a determined person could figure out who I am. The first phone call or email I get, I'm retired, poof, adios. My respect in the community (if I have any), my admin status, my clean block log--none of that is worth one minute of grief in real life. SlimVirgin felt differently, which is not wrong, but was the more challenging route, and despite the best efforts of many people, seems to have failed. Thatcher131 05:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry, edit conflict.) Re your original reply to me, your information and analysis is based on what? Is it based on the operator of a professional smear campaign that has a record and history of providing selective evidence aimed at "proving" that the target of his boss's rage is guilty? Or is it based upon your own independent evaluation of the evidence, after obtaining an explanation from SlimVirgin?

This goes back to ElinorD's comment, which I amplified, the credibility and motives of the professional p.r. man who is behind these allegations. I'll give you an example of the crap this guy produces. He has been attacking me right and left too. His latest thing is that I "work for company X," based upon an IP edit in the middle of some church article I was editing. What he doesn't say is that all the other edits by this same IP involve articles on Polish princes and whatnot that I have never edited. See the edit history here[26], and check out the contribs of this IP [27]. The links I have just provided are the sole basis of an entire "expose'" on his company-financed website.

That is typical of his methods, and knowing this I am struck by the air of unreality of this discussion. If you want to take any action, do it on the basis of everything but what this sleazeball puts on his company-financed website. That is why it was unfortunate that this AN/I was commenced. AN/Is should not be commenced upon such a foundation. --Mantanmoreland 05:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The messenger may be foul but the message is apparently accurate. I can not speak for User:Gmaxwell but I can summarize what he told me and what he wrote above. He also has a dump of Wikipedia from before oversight and it too shows the same deleted and oversighted edits as the blogger reported. Gmaxwell's dump is different in that he can not see the content of the edits, but he confirmed that the times and users/IPs are as claimed. Gmaxwell also complained to the lead developer Brion Vibber about Jayjg's use of oversight; Brion removed Jayjg's access for two days [28] during which it was apparently discussed by ArbCom and then restored. Thatcher131 06:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

In any case, the Committee is aware of the concerns raised here, and is looking into them. Anyone not satisfied with letting us do that can complain up the ladder; otherwise, please don't rip each others' heads off debating the issue. Kirill 06:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I heartily agree that this AN/I should never have been commenced. But here it is, commenced, and underway for several thousand words. Thatcher, how can you know if what you say is "accurate" without input from the affected editors? In the example that I cited concerning myself, a superficial examination of the edits would say, oh golly Mantanmoreland forgot to sign in and came in as an IP, case closed. But then you look at this IP and you realize that is absurd. Can't you fathom the possibility that something similar is happening here, given the "foul" as you put it nature of the source? This is separate and apart from the moral issue of Wikipedia publicly rending its garments in service of a corporate smear campaign underway in various media.--Mantanmoreland 06:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Oversight has logs that are viewable by other oversighters, and that i guess is supposed to be a check/balance against abusive use. However it took a non-oversighter (GWH) comparing pre and post database dumps to uncover the very agressive use of the tool. Perhaps, the logs need to be made availible to a wider range of people: (ie admins). I'm not sure what they show now, but I am suggesting something like: Aaction performed by, date and time, on what page and that is all. This would make large scale use of a tool which is supposed to have very limited uses far easier to discover. I am not suggesting that *anyone* be able to see the contents of the oversighted edits, I am simply suggesting that more eyes on the bare bones logs would give people the ability to raise questions/check for abuse more easily should it be necessary. Viridae^Talk 06:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This would also have the negative effect of drawing additional attention to the edits. Oversight was instituted because one or more admins were apparently distributing deleted content to outside groups, so a log viewable to all admins would almost certainly compromise the usefulness of oversight as a tool. Kirill 06:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Drawing what attention? No one is suggesting admins should be able to see the actual oversighted edits (after all, if they could, oversight would have no more effect than selective revision deletion), but only that something was oversighted. Just like when a page is deleted, a regular editor can't see what was there, but by checking the deletion log, they know something was there, that it was deleted, who deleted it, and a general summary as to why. In this case, the regular editor sees nothing, and the admin sees only "1 revision oversighted by Someonewithoversight: Contained personal info (phone number)." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand how a more public log would aid in the leaking of information. Since the edits are already hidden from all non-oversights and developers, the knowledge that information was removed from a certain page can't be that compromising, can it? I can't think of anything I'm missing in how data on when who removed revision(s) from where - and why they did it - could have negative effects in the hands of admins. Picaroon (t) 06:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The location of the edit may itself be information that needs to be restricted, for various reasons (some more obvious than others); and if that's removed, we'd just be left with "Oversighter X removed a revision at Time", which doesn't seem particularly useful.

(AFAIK, there was some talk about reimplementing MediaWiki's deletion scheme to allow more fine-grained control over what was visible, and to whom, which could make this all a moot point; but I'm not sure whether that's still in the works.) Kirill 06:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to say that I agree with the substance of what is being said by DanT and SirFozzie. From what I have seen, SlimVirgin has frequently permablocked editors on evidence less compelling than that which is being presented against her -- often, I might add, editors with whom she has been involved in content disputes. I would like to submit the following modest proposal: that SlimVirgin, as a consequence of this episode, be asked not to ban others, in the future, for offenses that she herself has committed. There should be no double standards here. --MaplePorter 06:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No way, that's just lame. It makes no difference what she did in the past if she's not doing it anymore, and it should not prevent her from being a good admin now. -- Ned Scott 06:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

And don't use this as an opportunity to get back at someone with which you've had a content dispute. nadav (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(response to comment by Viridae) Perhaps oversight review could be requested much in the same way that Checkuser is; operated by a few, but results available against specific valid requests? Perhaps this could be discussed at a more appropriate venue? LessHeard vanU 09:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• I learned of this by email. Others have said the same, but for what it's worth I will echo their comments: an alternate account used for a couple of dozen edits over two years ago, why on earth are we even discussing this? "Swaying" a discussion? Bullshit. There were so many other people involved that it made no difference. Slim says it was an honest mistake, I accept that at face value because (a) we have no reason not to and (b) it doesn't matter anyway because it made no difference at the time. At this point we can go one of two ways: give Slim our unqualified support, or allow yet another long-standing and highly valued member of the community be hounded off by grudge-bearers on a mission. Ask yourself this: what is the present impact of this supposed problem? What is the likelihood of SV abusing this account today? We are allowed to use alternate accounts, as long as we don't use them abusively. One tiny and mistake (which is no different in character to my accidentally voting twice with one account on a AfD years ago) is so trivial that I am astonished anybody has bothered to give it the slightest consideration. Has Mr. Sense entirely left the building, people? Don't you recognise this for what it is, part of a vicious campaign by a frustrated abuser of the project? Haven't you all noticed that SV is being attacked viciously and without scruple by a few individuals who have been prevented from using Wikipedia to pursue their personal agenda? How often does this have to happen before we either stop giving aid and succour to the trolls, or run out of admins willing to take on the hard cases? Guy (Help!) 09:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, Guy (and please stay), for once again being the voice of reason in a sea of unrelenting hyperbole and discreditable malice. El_C 09:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• The more I look at it the more pathetic it looks, frankly. The source of the problem, a posting on a blog run by a well-known and self-admitted troll, shows that there was an early use of Oversight back in the days when it was fairly new, and the past history of attacks against SV is such that any steps taken to help her improve her privacy are probably OK. But there is evidence here of evil intent and an ongoing problem - and in both cases the problem is not SV, it's Judd Bagley, Patrick Byrne and their use of an existing campaign against SV to further their Holy Crusade against naked short selling as an excuse for the execrable performance of their company. I am profoundly disappointed (though not surprised) that anybody has greeted this malicious piece of shit-stirring by Bagley with anything other than the "so what?" which is all it deserves. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There's clearly a huge, complex backstory to all of this, extending across many Web sites and into the "real world"... but it's ridiculous how this extended big mess (where everybody from corporate CEOs to journalists to who knows what other occupations the people involved have, are acting like junior-high-school kids) is driving policy decisions here on Wikipedia. The whole "attack site link" thing, which I've been fighting so hard against, seems to be one of the things that has come out of this mess; overuse of oversight is another. Promoting an air of secrecy and hierarchy on a site that's supposed to be free and open is another. It seems that perhaps Kelly Martin, and some commentators on the wiki-en-l list, were right that Wikipedia would be better off without certain people and the shitstorms that surround them, regardless of whose fault the whole mess is (and I think there's plenty of fault to spread all around). *Dan T.* 11:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Dan, your crusade to allow links to Wikipedia Review has no real relevance here, links to antisocialmedia are clearly inappropriate for blindingly obvious reasons. You would do yourself a favour, I think, if you did not use this as an excuse to push your own campaign. Frankly I think it's rather tasteless. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• There seems to be an awful lot that's "blindingly obvious" to those within the clique that is far from obvious to everybody else. *Dan T.* 15:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Why is it being discussed now, instead of 2 years ago when the account was active? I suggest it was because it was not known that an alternative account existed (er, is it now recognised it was an alternative account of SV or is this hypothetical?) at the time. Certainly SV has not AFAIK commented she has edited from it, hence the current situation. The other reason is that accusations of sockpuppetry (with as much controversial editing patterns as this one) often forms part of the debates that editors often associated with SV take part in. If a valuable contributor such as SV is claimed as having an undisclosed alternative account in the past, then it may be considered as undermining some of the suggestions of tainted bias leveled against those who have been claimed as sockpuppets/masters when engaging in debates with her and her supporters. Further, any administrative action taken by or on behalf of SV as regards operating alternative accounts may be claimed to be hypocritical in the light of these accusations, unless the matter is resolved openly. Whatever the motives of some people in bringing up these claims it has now got to the stage where the community needs to appraise the issue and declare a result. The worst thing for SV, in my opinion, is to let the matter remain ambiguous and a source of potential harassment. LessHeard vanU 12:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• I would suggest that if it had been discussed back then, the result would have been "huh? so what?" or maybe a (very mild) rebuke. It was not that big a deal back then, and it's now utterly irrelevant, because this was not a sockpuppet. This was an alternate account. If you want to see sockpuppets look at the history of users like User:Jason Gastrich or User:JB196. A sockpuppet is an alternate account used abusively - there is no suggestion that this account was used abusively. The sole evidence of any problem is voting twice on the 9/11 FAC, which made precisely no difference to the outcome and was, we are told, an honest mistake. Wikipedia then was different to Wikipedia now; the very high profile of Wikipedia today means that obsessives absolutely must get their point across on Wikipedia, and it is these people that the sockpuppetry policy is designed to control. Is SlimVirgin using an alternate account to pretend to greater support for her position than actually exists? No. Did she do so then? Seems unlikely. Are you now going to say that my work against Gastrich and Barber is undermined because I have used other accounts in the past? Or are we going to look at the facts here and recognise that the problem is a frustrated abuser of the project, aiming to stir up shit, and succeeding rather well? Guy (Help!) 13:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• You will note that I have been using the term alternate account - but I recognise that it has lead to accusations of sockpuppetry . That is the first area of concern, is there a legitimate complaint? Whether there was sustained sockpuppetry is not relevant, just if there was any. It subsequently appears that it was a mistake. It is then a pity that it wasn't admitted to all that time ago - on an afd where it didn't make any difference - when it was first realised. A lot of drama could have been avoided. Regarding area of concern that does this invalidate your own actions against serial sockpuppets/masters? Nope, serial sockpuppets/masters is a different thing entirely - checkuser and WP:DUCK are very reliable tools. However, the comment "you seem to be echoing the sentiments/comments/edits of User:PossibleUndeclaredAlternativeAccount" has been seen in various discussions between opposing parties in myriad disputes - the inference that there is only one opinion voicing opposition and is thus trying to influence the outcome by stacking the argument. So when there is a mistake in using a previously (and, ahem, subsequently for some time) undeclared alternative account it beholds the main account holder, and their supporters, to realise that this may have been the situation in other circumstances. Lastly, the concern over the source. This is patent misdirection - are Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin really nice men simply because one blood thirsty dictator declared the other to be embarking on a campaign to silence internal critics by state sanctioned murder and incarcaration to be one? The truth is that both men evilly suppressed opposition - therefore the personal standing of the source is irrelevant. What is important is the truth, and the open examination of claims to see if there is any to them. As I said earlier, SV is better served by having this clarified and commented upon than by WP:DENYing based on specious argument - and leaving the allegations to continue to fester.
• I should note that I am open minded toward SV and any supposed improper conduct that there may be. I am concerned with Wikipedia, and its reputation. That is why I prefer to have these things openly debated. LessHeard vanU 14:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Any "open debate" as you put it should include a full recitation of the pedigree of the person who is making that allegation, including his motives, his tactics and his intent. The last element has not been sufficiently discussed in this AN/I, so let's have a full an open debate about it. His intent is not to improve Wikipedia, but to undermine it. How? By getting people like you, especially you because you are an administrator, to do what he wants.

The reputation of Wikipedia is definitely at stake here. The person who originated this allegation against Wikipedia represents the interests of a corporation that is seeking to compete against Wikipedia through its own Wiki, and which also has personal animus against SlimVirgin. Wikipedia has come under a lot of criticism for allowing corporations to influence content, and here we have a corporation seeking to influence actions concerning administrators. That definitely puts Wikipedia's reputation in jeopardy. So let's continue this open debate and discuss this aspect.--Mantanmoreland 15:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Start a new subject and I will see if there is anything useful I can contribute, and if I can learn anything of the particular individuals who appear to be the source of this matter. This section, which seems to have run its course for the time being, is about SV. Let us try to keep these discussions, and the matter developing below, separate. LessHeard vanU 15:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland's comments sound very much like personal attacks against the critic in question, which is highly hypocritical coming from somebody who is so insistent on rigid enforcement of the "no personal attacks" policy. *Dan T.* 15:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The "critic" in question being permabanned User:WordBomb, the p.r. man/cyberstalker I just mentioned? I just want to be sure I understand your point.--Mantanmoreland 16:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Somebody being permabanned makes no exception regarding personal attacks against them; see WP:NPA: "It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user." *Dan T.* 16:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 5. Appropriateness of external linking to and public discussion of deleted oversighted material

The material externally link to reveals material purportedly removed by oversight. It also contains personal identifying information (the IP address and posts). No one is going to copy that stuff and post it on Wikipedia because it would be wholly wrong to do so. In the same way, linking to that website from Wikipedia is wholly wrong and openly discussing oversighted material also is the wrong way to go about this matter. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 13:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Openly quoting from those parts of the disputed material which disclose personal information would be inappropriate, but the larger context can surely be discussed (that material that was subsequently removed which indicates a different position than that which has been maintained after removal). My concerns are that without the ability to comment on material held off-site there is a possibility that discussion will be stymied for "lack of verifiable information" owing to the inability to refer to the information held off-site. My other concern is that the material is obviously available to anyone with a bit of nous, link or no link. Perhaps if we were both to redact this discussion then the potential for learning what the material contains is lessened by some little degree? LessHeard vanU 13:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If your clique is powerful enough, you can suppress all discussion of your abuses by this sort of means... just get all the embarrassing stuff oversighted, then invoke rules against even linking to or discussing the oversighted material... heck, why not get every website that posts it declared an Attack Site to further stymie discussion... then ban any user that brings it up, so that in the future you can declare any reference to any related information as originating with a banned user so that it can be dismissed and deleted out of hand. *Dan T.* 13:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Dan, Follow your own advice and consider this case in isolation. Does a two-year-old incident of accidental misuse of an alternate account by someone who is now a prolific contributor to the project, justify giving publicity to an external attack on that user? Does it merit investigation by ArbCom, or the community? Or is it just a long-dead "oops" that is of absolutely no present relevance whatsoever?

Consider: If I presented to the community compelling evidence that two years ago you had briefly experimented with an alternate account, or that you had accidentally forgotten to log in and had asked someone to oversight the edits to protect your privacy, would you support dragging in an external site run by people who want revenge for something you did to prevent them abusing Wikipedia for their own ends? Would you? Because that is exactly the case here. Speaking as one with some experience of Wikipedia community discussions, I would say that the vast majority of the community - the pragmatists - would simply shrug their shoulders and ignore it. One or two people, who have bees in their bonnets about matters of principle, might bitch and moan a bit, but we can afford to ignore that because - in the end - there is no present problem to solve. Other than the ongoing campaign by frustrated POV-pushers to undermine one of our admins, of course. But maybe you don't think that's a problem?

SlimVirgin has been ruthlessly and viciously attacked over a long period, and you appear to be suggesting that the problem is SV's friends rather than her attackers. How often does it have to be said? There Is No Cabal. To follow the principle which you yourself have advocated many times, namely taking each case on its individual merits, this case has no merit and the discussion is doing absolutely nothing to serve the project, because there is no present problem to solve, the past problem is not a problem anyway, and the motivation for posting the material is very obviously to attack someone who has dared to stop someone from abusing Wikipedia to push an agenda. Do everyone a favour and wait for a case which is not so very obviously caused by malicious abusers of the project. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Guy, I would just add one addendum: I agree that there is a "cabal," and it is a cabal of users who march in lockstep with Wikipedia Review and whatever troll or crackpot has gained influence there. Lately WR is under the Svengali-like spell of a corporate p.r. man who materialized here and there as User:WordBomb. Tomorrow it will be somebody else, because WordBomb is paid to do this, and when he is fired or the SEC nails him, he moves on to another job. But Wikipedia Review has a perma-hate for Wikipedia, so there will always be another troll pushing his or her or its agenda with the help of the cabal.--Mantanmoreland 14:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a clique / cabal / whatever of anti-Wikipedia people, and I'm hardly one who marches in lockstep with them... in fact, as you may know from past history, the way I first got into the thick of the "anti-attack-site-link" policy debate was from the fact that I liked to criticize WR (calling them "Wiki Whiners"), and, in the course of doing so, sometimes link to particularly interesting things over there that I was ridiculing. I've become a lot more sympathetic with their side lately due to my conflicts over here, but that is still far from being in lockstep with them... there's still an awful lot I disagree with on the part of the critics. There is, however, also a clique of Wikipedia insiders, and it's, in my opinion, more harmful than the "outsiders" clique by virtue of it holding power over here. Your insistence on treating a complex situation as a black-and-white issue of "good guys" here versus "evil guys" there is a big part of the problem. *Dan T.* 14:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are a darling man I'm sure but you're very effectively pushing the agenda of a banned user. I mean... that's what you're doing. You can spin it any way you want, and heaven knows the person who started this is paid handsomely to get people like you to do his bidding, but that is what is happening here. And by the way, you'll be interested to know that he just said you're his favorite Wikipedian. When he was working in Florida for the director of licensing in the Jeb Bush administration, he engaged in a smear campaign that ruined the career of a reporter for the Tampa Tribune. Would you have cheerfully followed his dictates then, if he was working Wikipedia at the time? I know you like to equate trolls and victims, but don't you have any moral standards whatsover?--Mantanmoreland 15:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Dtobias keeps telling us not to paint broad strokes about the contributors to WR and then turns around and does exactly that by labelling everyone who disagrees with his desires to be able to link to these "badsites" as part of a "clique" a "cabal", etc. No one believes that every contributor to WR has malicious intentions, but the fact remains, at least from what I have seen there, that the site has a strong element of banned editors from this site, all them moaning and wheezing about how badly they were treated here, and how they didn't deserve to be booted from here.--MONGO 15:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Um... I thought this was section was discussing the linking/discussion of material related purported sockpuppetry of a previously undeclared alternative account of SlimVirgin, and not an attack on Dan's standing on linking to Badsites generally? I also note the terms troll, victims and moral standards are being used in a context that is pretty close to a personal attack. Other than Dan's stance on linking/Badsites, are there any examples of supposed moral rectitude by Dan? Perhaps if correspondents are unable to stay on topic they should refrain from commenting, as they seem to inflaming the discussion rather than resolving it. LessHeard vanU 15:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Less, this discussion cannot be resolved, because SlimVirgin is not the issue, but rather the perma-hate directed against her and other users by Wikipedia Review. The "issue" is that this entire AN/I is based upon a banned user representing a corporation seeking to compete with Wikipedia. This user has threatened Wiki users, stalked them offline, and planted spyware on Wikipedia and elsewhere to obtain IPs. The constant efforts to equate this professional p.r. man with his victims, which DanT has been doing constantly by attacking them as members of a "powerful clique," is highly offensive to the victims of this troll and stalker. --Mantanmoreland 15:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the prime discussion is resolved; SV briefly used an alternative account, and mistakingly used it one time in a manner which subsequentley was complained of as sockpuppeting. Explanation given, lessons learned (the one I'm taking is admission now of mistakes - and, boy, do I make them! - is better than keeping quiet), matter closed, move on. Revisiting the reasons how this was bought to the communities attention is not, I agree, going to be resolved. There are three schools of thought on how criticism of Wikipedia - when personalised by targeting individuals - should be dealt with; two are at odds with each other and the third isn't aware that there is such a thing. However, bringing the two opposing groups into every instance of an occurence does tend to obscure the kernel of fact which may be present. Separating the criticism and its source, I believe, helps us concentrate on improving Wikipedia. Debating the motive of source, and whatever influence it may be garnering (and in emotive language), likely does not improve Wikipedia. This may be considered such an example. LessHeard vanU 16:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Less, you cannot "separate the criticism from its source" when the source is a professional p.r. man who is using Wikipedia as a tool in a smear campaign. We can't just shrug and do a Sergeant Schultz and say "I see nothing" when it is admitted that the source of an allegation is a corporate p.r. man on a corporate mission. There are two reasons for this.

The first is that the information is suspect, because it is selective and omits data that does not support his foreordained conclusion. I gave you an example from my own experiences above, and I provided the two links that he used for an "expose'" on his company paid attack site. The second reason is the damage that you do to the project by validating and empowering the smear campaign. There are other reasons too obviously.--Mantanmoreland 16:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There's some "permahate" going on in both directions here. Anyway, around here the purported "victims" are in fact the ones who hold power in Wikipedia and the purported "attackers" are the ones who don't, as seen from the very fact that the former hold many positions such as admin, checkuser, oversight privileges, etc., while the latter are permabanned. Denying that the former group is the one that's a powerful clique is denying reality. *Dan T.* 16:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

This discussion is not productive and not likely ever to be so. I suggest that we either (a) archive it or (b) lift it wholesale to WP:RFAR and see if the arbs think there is anything worth looking at, which frankly I doubt. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Guy. It's counterproductive to the project to further encourage the harassment. THF 14:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

On the original subject, there is nothing worth looking at. On the subject of oversight/attack sites there is. But that can be doen elsewhere. Viridae^Talk 14:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive it and direct the arbs to it if need be, but I have a feeling it won't be necessary. Sarah 16:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a total waste of time, made distasteful by the hysterical self-righteousness of some of the comments above. Credibility is built on actions, and the adduced evidence provided above is as a single grain of sand upon a beach in the context of SlimVirgin's overall contribution. This discussion should be closed forthwith. Eusebeus 16:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion on this board is not going to lead to administrator invention and should be closed. Feel free to take the matter to arbcom, however. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I think that Cyde's delightful "conclusion before evidence" is yet again here displayed. Way to go, Cyde! I hope you enjoy your new bedfellows. Geogre 20:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I think enough has been said? If anyone disagrees, please feel free to start a new thread. Carcharoth 03:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

---

There appears to be some concentrated and rather clever effort by Elsevier, an academic and scientific publisher, to spam Wikipedia by linking to their product (books and journals, many of which are directly relevant to specific articles). I have reverted the edits and asked the one IP to discuss the additions on the talk pages of the articles (222.67.188.123). However, while deleting and reverting these, I came across other IPs and users who are adding interwiki links primarily to the pages that 222.67.188.123 is most heavily adding links to Elsevier products on. In other words, this appears to be either one person with multiple socks, or a concentrated effort by this publisher to move up google hits by interwiki-linking and spamming Wikipedia. I would like someone with more time to investigate what is going on and get Elsevier to cut it out. KP Botany 22:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting and highly suspiscious. Not all the links are for Elsevier products and we should be careful not to implicate a company without unquestionable proof. The IP address doesn't resolve to anything elsevier or publisher related. Elsiever sell enough text books primarily to students to not have to promote themselves here but what I find odd is the rate this user is working at. They are adding complicated references with ISBN numbers at a rate of one or two every minute, so either they are doing it off the top of their head with an incredible knowledge of publications (unlikely) or they are doing it from a text file of sources as I find it hard to believe they are reasearching and adding these links at a rate of 2 per minute. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 22:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty suspicious overall. They also added articles about these journals, Trends in Plant Sciences, interwiki linking all of them to each other, and many created by single purpose accounts to add a specific journal--I didn't check all, but this was created by User:TiPlants, and Trends in Ecology & Evolution by User:TiEcolEvol, both single purpose accounts to create these articles, and there are over a dozen others. There was a news article recently about how to increase your internet traffic and your rating on Google by doing exactly this, creating articles, linking legitimately to your site, creating interwiki links, using multiple accounts, creating named accounts, using IPs for legite edits, etc. Thanks for the special contributions, whoever did that. KP Botany 22:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It was me ;) and your welcome, check out the code on edit this page if you want to see how its done. Interesting finds about those single purpose user accounts. It seems the articles revolve around a central page: Trends_(journals). Heres trends in neurosciences on the pubmed.com database of journals (Its the google of journals). It is a noteable set of journals by elsiever. What isn't acceptable in my opinion is the spam inter-wiki linking to boost the search rating on google of the journals. This will be tough to deal with as the journal is noteable but this is an underhand method of promotion which is strictly against policy, it certainly does implicate Elsiever or an associated representative.WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 22:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I checked out your code above. I'd write it on my user page for future reference if I wasn't in the midst of an unrelated hissy fit on my user page. Hopefully, I'll remember it. Here are some of the other single purpose accounts for the purpose of creating articles on journals and interlinking them.[45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][[55][56][57] There are quite a few more, but this is a good start. I don't have time to do it, and with so many, it is going to take some work--and they are really going at it heavy, look at the clever assortment of names, only cross editing on occassion, very well done. KP Botany 22:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to spam warn the 'muthas. I hate this crap. KP Botany 22:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• I changed the laundry lists to a single link per article back to the article Trends (journals). All are short and devoid of any independent sources, I suggest merging them all to Trends (journals). Guy (Help!) 23:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I shortened them even further because it irritated me so much that this was done and in such a carefully orchestrated manner--orchestrating wikilinks so deliberately. The various IPs and users can argue on talk pages about insertion. The Trends article already exists, so I G-11ed all of 'em, and it sure would be nice to see this crap removed from Wikipedia in a speedy fashion. KP Botany 23:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Unaware of this debate, I reverted the speedy tags. I think pages that have survived for over a year need to go to AFD. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

OMG take a look at my talk page. Would someone please teach KP Botany how to nominate an article for normal deletetion. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Already done on my own talk page. Incidentally, I wrote the journal-related comments there before I'd caught any whiff of the complex activities described here: I thought these were merely ads for ("articles about") a small set of journals. -- Hoary 01:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I folled the instructions on the talk page. And, just because it's hung out for a year (that's why the pages are completely out of date about the articles too), doesn't mean it is enshrined in Wikipedia. The instructions say to alert the person, and I alerted you. Isn't that what this is all about, making me do as much work as possible? KP Botany 01:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The last part's certainly true. . . . Keep working diligently, and eventually you might be rewarded with a mop and bucket and then a hugely increased number of people will hate you. Life's a bitch. -- Hoary 01:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, work diligently to protect Wikipedia from crap and you'll be insulted and called a troll. KP Botany 01:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. I didn't call you a troll, I said you were trolling me when you posted multiple templates on my talk page. That doesn't make you a troll. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 01:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That's right, because troll is something not generally done by trolls, just like I should have known that, by "If you feel that strongly about it ask another admin for a review,"[58] you reall didn't intend for me to ask for a review. I'm done with this. KP Botany 01:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review both withdrawn and dismissed, since Deletion Review does not have a role in re-considering non-deleted speedy-tags. Nominator should try WP:PROD or failing that WP:AFD instead. Splash - tk 01:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No thanks, I might mess something up. Let's just call this one a win for SEO and Elselvier. I found some more, too, but I sure as hell know better than to try to stop people from spamming Wikipedia. KP Botany 01:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You see, this is exactly why we need to debate. Your main argument is that spammers gain from SEO. But as I already told you on my talk page Wikipedia uses nofollow. See here. So at least part of your argument is moot. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 01:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, this is not my main argument--you and guy brought up SEO--this was merely one of the articles I saw written about this. However, the fact is that nofollow is not a fool-proof method of preventing links from moving up in search engines, because not all search engines respect them, and, because spammers are overall attempting to get people to click on their link no matter how. That is why Wikipedia did not instantly stop being spammed when it adopted a policy of no follow. The articles are poorly written spam pieces of crap uploaded by a set of single purpose sock accounts designed to get around editors looking at their multiple contributions--your only concern is they stay because they've been here a long time. You offered no other argument for why multiple identical articles similary worded created in a few days by a series of single purpose socks did not look like advertisments. Simply that they had been here a long time. I concede this point to you for these and the rest of them. And, it's nice to know that since spamvertisements on Wikipedia aren't a concern because of nofollow (something I've never heard before), I should gracefully let the rest of the pyramid reside permanently on Wikipedia--with pleasure. I do have to congratulate Elsevier and a couple of others on turning the rules so that "nofollow" means "spam allowed," and on the cleverness and effort they've put into spamming Wikipedia. I personally think that more Wikipedia editors would be concerned about this, but I'm tired of getting called a troll. If you want to continue discussing this, please take it elsewhere, as nothing I've said matters, because I'm a troll according to you--and, yes, when you say someone is trolling you are, indeed, calling them a troll, just like when you tell someone to ask another admin for review, you aren't saying they should invite the community to discuss the issue. KP Botany 02:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

OK you win. You are a troll. Only a troll would waste this much time arguing rather than nominating the articles for deletion. Satisfied? Yes I said ask another admin to review. N o I didn't mean deletion review, why would I? That page is for, you know, reviewing deletions and deletion debates. The place for the community to discuss deletion is at WP:AFD. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 02:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Theresa, KP is not a troll. You should check out someone's contribution history before you do that. Then maybe apologise. KP might need to apologise to you as well. I'm also happy to apologise to either or both of you if you think I'm lecturing either of you, if this is what is takes to stop bickering. KP might have misunderstood the deletion process, but was concerned about the spamming possibilities. Seems you both missed the merge option. I'm now going to do the same (categorizing of the redirects) for the Trends journals. Carcharoth 03:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I know he isn't. I only said it because he kept pushing me to. See my talk page. KP I'm sorry I was short with you. You came on very agressive and that irked me. Admins have feelings too. Anyway. I'm sorry. In particlular I'm sorry for not starting the AFD debate for you when i could see that you were unable to follow the intructions yourself. That was mean of me and a bit childish too. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 03:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, guess what? When I first read this discussion, it was only up to Hoary's comment about mop and bucket. In the time it took for the rest of the discussion to take place, I did a mass merge of all the information (turned out to only be dates), and created some categories. The results are best summarised by my post at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Current Opinion in Immunology:

Yes, I noticed that an AfD was in progress on one of these titles. In the spirit of KP Botany's sarcastic comment "let's discuss on AfD all day instead of editing" (I'm paraphrasing, but you get the drift), I carried on editing and merging. I think the main article Current Opinion is OK for the moment, and if any of the journals get expanded, they can move to their own articles. The 10 redirects are at Category:Current Opinion journals, a subcategory of Category:Elsevier scientific journals, a subcategory of Category:Scientific journals by publisher, a subcategory of Category:Scientific journals. I urge people to help expand this category structure and write and merge stubs. After finishing AfD discussions, of course! :-)

So how about it? Instead of wrangling on the noticeboards, why not see how many of the 2000 Elsevier journals can be placed in that category. If the journals are not notable or only have sections, put the redirects to the sections in the category. Carcharoth 02:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

See WP:VPP#THF. 15:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

---

I'm curious about why there's such a movement to excuse the behavior of the michaelmoore.com folks. If this was SlimVirgin being featured, or the website was someone unknown doing it, would y'all be so sanguine about things? I've posted this to a new section because the previously was forcibly closed. That's been happening a lot lately. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole attack site ruling was created for sites like Encyclopedia Dramatica, which routinely calls our admins pedophiles. It doesn't even come close to covering normal everyday political discourse, like what Michael Moore is doing. At the risk of sounding condescending, THF is a "big boy". While I'm sure he's not happy about what Michael Moore said about him, I'm also confident that he's dealt with much, much worse in his career in the business, and he can handle it. It's not our duty to run around removing all links to websites that directly comment on Wikipedia matters. Frankly, it's a bit of a juvenile response. --Cyde Weys 16:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, what about external websites that do nothing but expose the identity and post photos of anonymous editors - do we link to them? ATren 16:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Why so desperate to stifle debate???????????????????????? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Debate wasn't stifled; the admin action that was required was completed. This is the page to discuss incidents requiring administrator intervention. Sancho 16:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No, probably not. I just want to point out that ArbCom messed up by finding in favor of a ruling against attack sites without actually defining what an attack site is. Since that ruling, the meaning of "attack site" has been perverted to an extraordinary degree to the point that links to external sites that happen to mention Wikipedia matters are being removed. An attack site is something like Hivemind, which exists solely to expose Wikipedia's editors. Michael Moore's site is not an attack site. This is the first time to my knowledge that he's even mentioned any internal Wikipedia matters. --Cyde Weys 16:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes Cyde before it had THF's details on it, it was NOT an attack site, now it does it is an attack site. When he takes the attack down it won't be, UNDERSTAND. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well regardless of the ambiguity of the ArbCom ruling, the fact that the Michael Moore site does pretty much exactly what hivemind did, should subject it to the same policy, right? And it's pretty clear that Michael Moore posted his identity, photo, and previous occupation as an intimidation, just as hivemind posts identities to intimidate. There should be no debate here. ATren 16:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

1)He changed his account name to get more privacy they then republished the info. 2) Its not just the outing as showing the info was trying to game wikipedia by nullifying THF's edits. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This should really be treated as a clear case of COI rather then a case of WP:BADSITES.--Jersey Devil 16:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

COI by whom? ATren 16:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a COI violation, but I have reported myself to the noticeboard, where you are welcome to make the argument there. THF 17:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

THF's identity is not private. His original account (username changed recently) had his name. How, then, is MM.com like the Hivemind? The Hivemind outed editors. To be outed, your identity must first be private... --Iamunknown 16:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy explicitly says I am entitled to change my username and keep my identity private, even if it used to be public. Please respect that. THF 17:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Did he post his photo and employment history in his Wikipedia profile? Personally, I'd be a little intimidated to see my photo and previous work history plastered across Michael Moore's website. Furthermore, it's still not clear to me which edits by THF were so controversial. If there were actual evidence of wrongdoing by THF (like diffs perhaps?) maybe it wouldn't be such a problem. But as it stands, it is nothing but insinuations and intimidation. ATren 17:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've got to second this, does anyone here disagree that MichaelMoore.com is attempting to intimidate THF? Is that acceptable? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There's already been substantial discussion about this on ANI over the last couple of days. It's unreasonable to expect people to have to repeat their arguments for everyone who arrives late (especially when you seem to be ignoring what Cyde wrote regarding the decision anyway). Chris Cunningham 17:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Where was there a decision where consensus was reached? I missed that. THF 17:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the admin intervention being requested here? Sancho 16:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The first thing I'd like to see is that folks ease up on the aggressive archiving of threads here, conversations that are still in progress. Second, we have an issue at hand regarding an unbalanced use of admin tools that appears to support one POV over another and doesn't seem to be in-line with our site policies. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the discussion about quelling aggressive archival can happen at this project's discussion page. An unbalanced use of admin tools? Do you have evidence? Have you spoken to him/her? Is there something that an admin here can do? We could talk to the POV-supporter. We could open up a request for comment or an arbitration committee case... Sancho 17:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sancho, this is also an offshoot of the archived conversation above, why the aggression here? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I just woke up :-S um.. I started the archival discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Archival. I don't mean to be aggressive, I just am not sure what an admin can do about this case. Usually problems with admins like this would be handled through a request for comment or arbcom case, that's all was trying to say. I didn't read the above discussion, so I'll read it now. Sancho 17:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(To Chairboy, 17:04, 25 August 2007) It is unacceptable to intimidate other people, whether Wikipedia editors or Real Life people. I think most people would agree on this point. I disagree, however, that the correct response is to remove every link to the responsible web domain. Slashdot is hosting content purporting to out an editor as a secret agent. That is much more egregious than the content hosted by MM.com. Shall we remove every link to Slashdot? No. Slashdot is linked to in many articles,[65] and is a legitimate reference for articles related to online media and popular culture. An "attack sites" policy which liberally paints every website which hosts one page of content critical of an editor is bad policy. The disconnect between such policy and Slashdot is merely one example. Yet, as Wikipedia grows larger, I fear that it will not be the only example. Any "attack sites" policy needs to be sensible and conservative, not reactionary and liberal. Labeling MM.com as an attack site is reactionary and liberal. Thus I do not support it. --Iamunknown 17:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Then the action we should consider is clearly defining in policy what the breaking point is. That's something that lacking right now, and is causing unnecessary drama. Personally, I don't think plucking the websites out is the answer either, I'm a fan of putting a note to the effect of "MichaelMoore.com has been used blah blah blah harass blah blah etc" with a citation, honesty is far more effective than blind deletion, but either way, the threshold must be defined, and people are being treated as vandals here for doing what they think is right. Plus, editors like THF are being told to essentially "buck up" to clear intimidation (with photos and everything) while SlimVirgin is being treated with kid gloves. It's not a healthy state of affairs, we should be consistent. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The different treatment given to THF and SlimVirgin is a VERY BIG ISSUE, both deserve equal protection. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

People are not "being treated as vandals here for doing what they think is right". Noroton was blocked for going back and reverting after the admin who unblocked him told him not to. As for consistency, it's apples-to-oranges in many ways, so consistency (as in absolutism) isn't appropriate. And please don't encourage people to go adding "Michael Moore said bad things about a Wikipedian" to articles, I'm stunned that no bring spark has started doing it already and would rather that remained the case. Chris Cunningham 17:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It would have to be an NPOV, cited entry of course. I'm not advocating counter-attacks, just the facts. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The difference between the Slashdot example and this case is that Slashdot may have allegations somewhere in its domain, but not plastered across its front page. And even if Slashdot has attack threads, we don't link to those pages directly; whereas, in this case, mm.com contains THF's personal details right out there on the front page - yesterday it was a banner headline at the top of the page. Therefore, to be consistent with what has been done in similar cases, the mm.com links should be removed at least until the front-page attacks are removed. ATren 17:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• There are several problems here: 1. Are we building an encyclopedia? If so, expecting outside websites that have encyclopedic value to "follow our rules" is a bit much; 2. How does one unring a bell? If Essjay wants to come back, can he keep his identity secret? What if people outed him? How can we expect THF, who introduced himself on his User page, and named his employer, and who then simply changed his User name to his initials, realistically expecting that now all of Wikipedia has to be disrupted because he "takes back" what is archived in the annals of Wikipedia? Why does THF's desire to now be "anonymous" (he's anything but) now trump our desire to craft a useful, informative encyclopedia? 3. There is no attack. Moore pointed out that a notable individual edits his Wikipedia pages and said who he was, nothing that THF himself did not do, but now once the bell unrung; 4. We all love the influence our work on Wikipedia garners, and how often it is read, but none of us want what goes along with being such a public entity: fear of exposure. So we'll cut off our noses despite our faces. Instead of sticking to the original idea behind the project, we'll use the project to "punish" those who cross us, and in childish ways. That's how I see this situation. --David Shankbone 17:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not about punishment - it's about protecting our editors from intimidation. The mm.com link should be removed until mm.com removes its editor intimidation from the front page. That's all. That's what's done for other editors, it should be done here as well. ATren 18:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hear Hear ATren! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Atren. MM.com appears to be trying to out an editor from thier anonymous status here. That is unacceptable. — Moe ε 18:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"Anonymous status"? Are you joking? Or did you not read any of the comments above? --Cyde Weys 18:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let me rephrase that, he isn't anonymous and per guidelines here, he can try to reobtain that anonymous status, and MM.com is delaying the results of that. Thats why I believe MM.com should not be linked to in discussions like this. I have no opinion on it's worth in articles, however. — Moe ε 19:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop blaming the victim Cyde and david, he was stupid enough to believe that wikipolicies ment what they said so he revieled a CoI. This act of volentarilly following the rules rather than being forced is the crime of THF. He obviously regets following the rules and now wants to act like every other wikipedian. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "every wikipedian" writes a piece of journalism under his real name attacking Sicko and then tries to post it on every applicable article. I've written numerous things under my real name but I'm never, ever, going to link to them them under this account, I'd start another one. It would be insanity if I want to stay anonymous, yet THF can do this and apparently have his claims taken seriously? Are we not talking about the same man who only last week claimed that even though his account was in his real name we weren't allowed to refer to him by it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Still blaiming the victim! If you think THF has a CoI then take it to Arb (you could well be right), that does not mean that he is allowed to be attacked. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

He's not being attacked. He's not a victim! Michael Moore has placed his real name, on a page, and linked to his userpage. That's IT. Nothing else. My fucking God, by no standards could that be considered an attack by anyone. Michael Moore's idea of an attack is to produce stupid cartoons mocking his victims - we would be seeing a drawing of THF being smashed by stones spelling out COI if he was trying to attack him. EVERYONE who was reading AN/I last week knows THF's real name! I know his job, I know who he works for. Where? Did I learn this off of mm.com? No, I learned it from the attack piece on Sicko he wrote for the Wall Street Journal! To claim THF is trying to stay anonymous is ridiculous, and trying to claim Michael Moore is harrassing him is doubly so. I see no harrassment in pointing out that massive COI THF has in editing articles on Michael Moore. This has nothing to do with Arbcom and everything to do with the freedom of speech. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

MM is clearly harasing THF by posting his deatils and getting his lackeys to send lots of insulting emails to him. Whoever wrote the section knows there way around wikipedia enough to have been reading the threads here so knows where on wikipedia to post CoI issues. Only because MM is the god of the left in america is he getting this protection from editors. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I am a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party of the United Kingdom: I support the death penalty, the family, the monarchy, the legalisation of handguns, capitalism, globalisation, and I am probably one of the few people in the world who does not want out of Iraq immediately and am considering joining the TA so I can serve there because I love my country no matter what stupid shit we get ourselves into; I oppose abortion, income tax, progressive taxation generally, unions, and all restrictions on free speech. I am the antithesis of everything Michael Moore stands for, I think he is a liar, a charlatan and makes money out of being both. And yet I am "protecting" him. Because this isn't about Michael Moore, it's about the right of someone to criticise. What Michael Moore was doing is not attacking anyone, he was calmly (especially so for Michael Moore) pointing out that someone with a massive chip on his shoulder is editing articles on him. No-one but some lefties would have noticed, some vandalism would have occurred of THF's page, easily taken care of by semi-protection, mm.com would have taken it down eventually and that would have been it. Instead, some very silly people then went apeshit, decided to "punish" Moore (which is very telling about just how influential they think we, and they, are) and as a result every Wikipedian who keeps an eye on AN/I knows about THF and his exposure on mm.com. I ask you, if you think this is about victims and bullies, who is the bully here? The man who noticed a guy writing artciles on him in a massive COI and pointed this out on his website, or the editors who tried to remove every reference to mm.com they could in "revenge"? David Shankbone, for pointing out how fucking stupid this dispute is, or THF, who has hounded both DavidShankbone and Cyde for pointing out that THF only last week was known by his real name and can't really complain about not being anonymous? I hope you're satisfied, because the only real outcome is that Wikipedia looks like a total numpty, AGAIN, and THF is that much closer to being blocked in Jeff Merkey style exasperation. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, I don't particularly support the removal of links here for any reason. But the issue here is that there is a precedent here for removing links to sites that attempt to intimidate editors. We've all seen it - I just saw it happen last night with Slim Virgin. And this was a clear case of MM putting THF on the front page of his site to try to get him to stop editing his page - without citing a single piece of evidence that THF was being in any way abusive. In fact, I've still yet to see a single troublesome diff from THF (not that there couldn't be - I just haven't seen it). Until someone produces hard evidence of abuse by THF I think we should treat mm.com just like any other site which tries to intimidate editors off the project. Whether it's right or wrong to protect editors by not linking to attack sites, it's done all the time, and this should be no exception. The issue is consistency. ATren 20:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Consistency is my middle name. (Go ahead and stalk / out me in order to dig up my birth certificate and prove me wrong!) I've consistently opposed link bans on the grounds of their being alleged to be "attack sites", no matter whose sites they were and who they were attacking / critiquing / bothering. My personal politics (libertarian) are much closer to THF's than Moore's, at least on subjects like the nationalization or privatization of health care. However, I oppose suppressing links to Moore in order to "protect" THF, and also oppose suppressing other links to "protect" SlimVirgin, or anybody else, regardless of where in the political spectrum they are. *Dan T.* 21:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Damn right. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"1. Are we building an encyclopedia?" Yes and for that we need editors, and to have editors we need them not to be forced of wikipedia by POV-Warriors. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"2. How does one unring a bell?" Ask SlimVirgin et al. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Come again? has SlimVirgin succesfully unrung a bell? Interesting... I thought the discussion up this page a ways, the several external websites purporting to providing "outing" information and such was the exact opposite of unringing... --Iamunknown 19:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes but SlimVirgin was protected with many Oversights and is still protected today but NOTHING has been done to protect THF. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, many of us are of the opinion that everything done to "protect" SlimVirgin was not only counter-productive, it was wrong. Look up above a few sections. I reject your assertion that I should be okay with something happening for B when it happened for A, because I didn't like it when it happened for A either. Not that the two are even comparable anyways - THF is a public person whereas SlimVirgin isn't. Read the attack piece he published against Sicko that's been linked from this section. --Cyde Weys 19:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"3. There is no attack" So the info was posted on MM.com so that its readership could send THF flowers, puppydogs and rainbows? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

David, if you wish WP:HARASS#Posting_of_personal_information to be changed, then please raise that on WT:HARASS. But I wish you (and several other editors who should know better) would stop encouraging that policy to be ignored so long as it currently exists. And I wish that policy would be consistently enforced: I was threatened with an indefinite block when I inadvertently violated it once in February in identical circumstances of a username change, and I haven't seen a single warning issued for the multiple violations in the last few days. THF 18:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The harassment policy doesn't seem applicable here, as it only describe harassment by one Wikipedia user on another. Michael Moore isn't a Wikipedian. We can't ban him or anything. --Cyde Weys 18:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The harassment policy is applicable here, because, you, Cyde, are repeatedly violating it here on Wikipedia, and on multiple pages. THF 19:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You're being illogical. You never were anonymous here. Does linking to this public log entry on Wikipedia make me a violator of some policy? Don't be silly. --Cyde Weys 19:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Folks, you can't unring a bell. The editor's identity was self-disclosed. MichaelMoore.com is a political commentary and satire site. It's not an attack site. Yes, some of the commentary is hard hitting, but Michael Moore isn't trying to silence anybody. Wikipedia has recently made news around the world because of the WikiScanner. When high profile organizations and public figures edit Wikipedia, they are going to be called out. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"Yes, some of the commentary is hard hitting, but Michael Moore isn't trying to silence anybody" BS that was the only reason to post THF's info and all the MM Fanboys know that because they are still following order to attack him. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, MM.com is an attack site. It's what MM does. We can properly link to pages which aren't attack pages, but, the last time I checked (a few dozen edit conflicts ago) the from page was an attack page, and links from Wikipedia were redirected to that page, making all links attack links. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

They're not redirecting any links to different pages based on a Wikipedia referer as far as I can see. Perhaps you're confusing it with Perverted Justice, which is doing such a redirect? *Dan T.* 21:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Part of what makes this whole discussion so absurd is that many of the claims being made don't even hold up to even the flimsiest of investigations. --Cyde Weys 22:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What Wikipedia Is Not...

The new General Motors, Exxon, Columbine High School Massacre, etc.

Please. LessHeard vanU 20:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This means WHAT? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It means that Wikipedia did not close down a car making plant making thousands of employees redundant, it did not pollute a large area of coastline and attempt to not accept liability for the consequences, and did not claim that listening to Goth music was the cause of two disturbed youngsters go on a killing spree. It means that an individual volunteer editor on Wikipedia has attracted the attention of the subject of an article that they have edited (and there may or may not be some history regarding the real life identity of the editor and the article subject) and because this is a community orientated project all sorts of drama is being enacted in front of an audience - which includes the said subject who is very adept at using the publications of his subject matter to publicise his opinion. If you still fail to understand I can type it again... slower. LessHeard vanU 21:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Being pestered by User:DavidShankbone

David ShankBone has opened yet another thread about me, and I would like to know how many times I have to defend myself against the same false accusations (which were previously raised and rejected on WP:COI/N, WP:AN/I, Talk:Sicko, and Talk:Reality film, among other places) over a two-week old content dispute (where I acceded to consensus after an RFC) before someone will intervene with him. This is really rising to WP:STALK. THF 18:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC) (clarified 18:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC))

OMG, an editor took photos for Wikipedia and put them on articles that needed them! Oh lord, save us from this blatent misuse of an encyclopedia! Hey, wait... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: Dev920's comment was made before this diff. --Iamunknown 19:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've raised this issue at the Village Pump and on Jimbo's page. This is essentially the argument. THF is a public person, involved in issues and in writing Wall Street Journal Op-Eds and pieces that attack Michael Moore. THF is a public person, not a private person. He has no reason to expect WP:HARASS applies to him, especially when he brings his public battles with other public people to Wikipedia, as he has done with Michael Moore. After all, THF wrote this attack piece on Moore and argued to have it inserted into 25 articles on Wikipedia. I can't believe we are defending the right of a public person trying to conceal his identity when he brings his public spats with other public people onto Wikipedia. Frankly, it looks like we are taking sides. And that's not WP:NPOV and WP:HARASS does not apply. --David Shankbone 19:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • You've hit the nail on the head. He is obviously a public person who revealed all of his own details. And now he's threatening to take me to ArbCom because I'm not "respecting his anonymity". What anonymity?! It's very unseemly for Wikipedia to protect a guy who is just as much of a public person as Michael Moore merely because he happens to edit Wikipedia and Moore does not. I really do not trust his reasons for being here. Judging by that attack link on Michael Moore you posted, I'd say there is a huge conflict of interest in him editing anything related to Michael Moore. --Cyde Weys 19:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind my argument above then.. sorry, I'm a little slow today :p I didn't realize this was an editor for the Wall Street Journal, his anonymous status here on Wikipedia stopped after he posted that the first time around under his real-life name. Changing it now wouldn't make any difference. had this been solely an editor from Wikipedia and nothing else, which I thought that was the situation above, he might have had a valid argument. — Moe ε 19:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"I really do not trust his reasons for being here." - and which edits do you base this distrust on? Has he attempted to use his own article as a source? Being skeptical of a public figure's claims and writing about it off-wiki does not automatically disqualify an editor from bringing that well-sourced criticism to Wikipedia - as long as he doesn't source himself, of course. Has he in this case? ATren 19:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"a guy who is just as much of a public person as Michael Moore" So THF went to the oscers when? Has he been on hundreds of talk show promoting his films and ideas? Don't talk such utter nonsence. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If you really want to go down this road, Hypno, I will happily start posting links to THF's work profile, his website, his interviews on C-SPAN, to prove he is a public figure, all of which is readily available from Google. I suspect however, it will make things even worse, so please take my word for it that Mr F. is somewhat high profile. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This really is so absurd. We have a public figure whining about his anonymity, which he himself gave away, so that he can continue inserting his extremely conservative POV into articles about people he's been in public spats with and has attacked, on some occasions, in widely read publications (with many more eyeballs than, say, ANI). And now he's trying to pervert our policies against us by threatening me, as if I'm the one who's misusing Wikipedia, not him! --Cyde Weys 19:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"extremely conservative POV" At least you admit why your trying to harass him off wikipedia. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Your accusation is meritless without diffs. Way to take a quote of context, btw! --Iamunknown 21:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hypnosadist, you might get a bit further if you weren't lying out your ass. Your accusations are utterly false and you know it. --Cyde Weys 22:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You mentioned his supposed POV, this whole thing has got this far without action because hes not a lefty. Face it Cyde you and David are running blocking coverage for MM.com. The fact you don't like a policy does not mean you get to ignore it (well apperantly you do but thats the problem. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Threatening? Where? And where is the evidence of his misuse? Aren't we supposed to criticise the edits, not the editor? I've not seen a single diff that is problematic so far, in this entire debate. Having a POV does not mean you cannot edit - only if you push your POV without adequate sourcing does it become a problem. ATren 19:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The threat --Iamunknown 19:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Politely asking Cyde to follow policy before he takes it to arb com is considered a threat? ATren 19:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Threatening to take someone to ArbCom is a threat, whether or not it is padded with niceties. Whether we view a threat dimly or not depends upon the circumstances. I think that you may be conflating the exact definition of a "threat" with the negative connotation of a "threat". (Then again, I may be wrong.) --Iamunknown 20:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I was apparently wrong when I said Shankbone was harassing me on seven pages after having his allegations rejected on six other pages, because he announces that he has raised it on an eighth page. How much forum-shopping is appropriate? I self-reported myself on WP:COI/N#Sicko if anyone thinks there is an actual COI problem, but I have been complying with the COI guideline. THF 19:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that you engage DavidShankBone on the issue that he raises? He may have raised this issue in more than one place, but it seems that commenters at those locations either agree with him or argue that he is forum-shopping or stalking or some other diversionary issue. I submit that the appropriate way to come to an honest consensus is to address his argument directly, rather than trying to divert the conversation. I am actually quite interested in how this is to be resolved. Ossified 19:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It will be resolved when something is done to protect a wikipedian. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• • (e/c)And that's not WP:NPOV - That is a very salient point that we should consider. I wonder what the public's perception of these proceedings would be if they knew? But also, would you please not spread the discussion further, David? --Iamunknown 19:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I've posted this discussion at the Village Pump, which since so many admins were saying "there is no admin action to be taken" I thought was the appropriate forum. I've alerted Jimbo because this involves two high-profile people, and may make it into the media. That's not a forum, that's a message board. Now that the issue is at the Village Pump, I suggest we all take it there. THF dragged every page in the past we have ever edited on to say I've raised this on multiple forums, but in reality most of the pages were in reaction to THF's postings, not "brand new postings." And the issue is now: does WP:HARASS apply here at all, either in regards to Michael Moore responding to a very public critic who has taken his public spat to Wikipedia, and does THF have any currency in his argument we should continue to not use his name when he is using Wikipedia in what is obviously an on-going spat he has with Moore, a published spat. See you at the Village Pump - no admin action required, I'm just trying to sort out this issue. And I invited Jimbo to participate. --David Shankbone 19:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

On another article an editor was blocked for three days for posting an external link about another editor that used his real name. With this one, THF has his picture, real name and personal information revealed. This is against Wikipedia policy. It doesn't matter when THF decided to use an alternate ID name. The point is, this is wrong to change policy for this case. The website should be removed until THF is no longer attacked. Has anyone trying to contact Michael Moore about this? If not, why not. I repeat the website should be deleted while it has an editor here outted, which of course is my opinion. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You really haven't been following the conversation, have you? Moore never outed THF...THF has had his name available on his user page for over a year. (I'd provide a link, but someone just deleted the history.) Not to mention the fact that he was up until 2 weeks ago, editing under his real name. God luck getting rid of that evidence... --149.125.202.18 20:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Directly from WP:HARASS: It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives. It can't get much clearer than that. ATren 20:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Directly from WP:HARASS: Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. [rest snipped] This is a mere line above the sentence you quoted. Please show the full nature of the quote, which pretty much says the opposite of what you want it to. :P --149.125.202.18 20:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The line I quoted specifically addresses the special case where an editor who previously revealed himself no longer wishes to. It specifically alludes to a user who changes his username, meaning that user previously revealed himself but no longer wishes to have that advertised. Do you have another interpretation for that line? ATren 20:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

In a rough summary, it goes "giving details is bad. unless user gives them themself. reasoning of policy. this rule also applies to a user has changed username." It never grants the exemption that you seem to be thinking of. In addition, Cyde has pretty much hit it on the nail.--149.125.202.18 20:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It is clearly stated that revealing someone's old username from archives is considered harassment. You may interpret it however you wish, but it appears quite unambiguous to me. ATren 21:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This whole line of reasoning that it's "harassment" to say an editor's prior username is absurd. Frankly, the only harassment going on here is by the people who are, against all common sense, trying to claim that THF has some vestiges of anonymity left, and are making various threats including nonsense allegations of violations of policy and threats to go to ArbCom. --Cyde Weys 20:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have tried to keep up with the conversations about this but what is more important to me is that I went to Moore's website and saw THF's picture, commentary etc, which is against policy. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• So Crohnie, the only thing it takes is for a person to 1. be a Wikipedia editor; and 2. request nobody use their name, and then if any outside website does this, then we can start removing it from Wikipedia? What if Time Magazine does a story on THF and Michael Moore? Will this make it an attack site? What if Rush Limbaugh writes a stories about those "Damn Liberals harassing THF at Wikipedia over Michael Moore" but uses his real name and/or photo? We de-link Rush as well? What if Barack Obama asks for anonymity and starts editing Hilary Clinton's articles. Do we keep him secret and delink anyone who calls attention to it? What's the line when it comes to public people, their critics and those who report about us and we do? And on the 9th most-visited website in the world, do any of us have a reasonable expectation of anonymity from the outside world? Perhaps those who do should not be here, since in this case, we are trying to punish the outside world for violating internal policies and guidelines. I doubt you have many answers to those questions, but this situation begs them all... --David Shankbone 21:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

We block all attack sites that out wikipedians as policy says. Its very simple we do whatpolicy says. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fair. The only thing that I want you to know is that Moore didn't exactly dig this info up, it's all been relatively available because of THF's actions regarding his privacy in the past.--149.125.202.18 21:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not the standard case where revealing an editor's real name is problematic. Our rules in this area have developed to deal with this situation:

Editor is a private individual. Used to edit under real name. Has come to fear real word actions in response to their editing of Wikipedia - harassment, threats even violence. We rightly in this case take a strong line against the revelation of their name, despite the fact it used to be freely disclosed on-wiki. People have a right to privacy - in the sense of separating their private lives from their Wikipedia editing.

But this situation is more:

Editor is a fairly public figure. Objects to accusations being made on-wiki about conflicts of interests due to his identity being known. This is not the classic WP:HARASS situation. Here the editor is objecting to his public actions off-wiki affecting his ability to edit Wikipedia. The argument for concealing their (previously openly revealed) identity seems much weaker.

I'm not entirely sure how we should deal with THF's situation. But I think screaming "attack site" and accusing longstanding editors of harassment for mentioning his name is a ridiculous over-reaction. It seems to be applying rules developed for a subtly but importantly different scenario. WjBscribe 21:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is screaming "harassment", but the fact is that this editor has requested others not to refer to his previous identity, and the WP:HARASS page seems to accommodate that kind of request. Now, maybe he's well-known enough for him to be a public figure, I don't know. But shouldn't we refrain from making spurious references to his name until we sort it out?

Also, this entire thing feels quite punitive to me. Obviously there are some negative feelings towards THF (for those who know his true identity) due to his criticisms of Michael Moore, but should we be holding that against him? The fact is that THF has openly admitted his political position - even after changing his username he has been quite open about his conservative ideals. He should not be punished for that, because we don't (can't!) apply the same punitive principle to an anonymous editor for the simple reason that we don't know their POV or associations. To criticise THF for who he is goes against the fundamental principle of Wikipedia, which is that we don't care who you are as long as your edits are constructive. And, still, I've yet to see an abusive edit by THF. ATren 22:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Gratuitous use of his name would indeed be inappropriate. But raising the question of whether it is appropriate for John Smith (supposing that was his name) to edit article Foo does not to me seem like to me to be being done in good faith. Indeed it would different to express the potential COI problem without mentioning his name. I think we need to look at this practically - any user who asks not be called X should not be called X - that is basic civility. But exceptions may have to be made when using that name is necessary to the point being discussed. Common sense should prevail rather than a blanket ban. WjBscribe 22:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I rather think this entire discussion has been rendered moot by THF deciding to link to the article which has been created on him and acknowledging it as him. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not moot at all. Somebody's just going to come along and accuse you of harassment, saying you can't link to anything like that. This whole situation is absurd, and makes me wonder if there aren't ulterior motives involved. --Cyde Weys 22:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. Nobody accused you of harassment, we only cited the page where this was documented and requested you stop doing it. ATren 22:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if you're not claiming it's harassment, exactly on what grounds are you arguing that I shouldn't talk it? I'm not just going to do things because you say that's how they should be done, sorry. --Cyde Weys 22:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

ATren, this (given the policy mentioned) reads like an accusation of harassment to me. It obviously did to Cyde as well. If not meant as such you may wish to clarify that... WjBscribe 22:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it was not an accusation. I simply requested to stop posting his name, and I cited the page containing the relevant policy. If you got the impression that I was making an accusation, then I am telling you now it was not. ATren 22:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to add a few words, if that's OK. If a user feels that they are genuinely being harassed, we would encourage them to create a new account and inform an administrator they trust, or by perhaps creating details of their old username on their userpage before having it deleted, as it common with administrators that have suffered tremendous harassment on and off the site. If you're going to use a new name, but have a sizeable number of edits to talk pages, user talk pages and of course to articles that have you've kept, through being renamed, then editors are entitled to know what your old username was. If an editor is genuinely concerned about stalking or harassment, take up a new username. Edit count isn't the be all and end all of editing Wikipedia, after all. Nick 22:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Question: Why is there no 'history' at THFs user page, which used to say on the page his full name and where he worked for? That was proof that under his THF name he used his real name too. Why is that history all gone? (unless I am remembering things 100% wrong and I don't think that) Thank you. •smedleyΔbutler• 22:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Point of order - the question here wasn't so much over abusive edits by THF, but by the disruption to the Project his near-hysterical effort to put toothpaste back into the tube has caused. From this we have him constantly trying to remove any mention of who he is, even when relevant (as it was during the Sicko discussion and COI discussion over him trying to insert a Ted Frank hit piece on Michael Moore and Sicko - now watch that disappear). Because of this effort of this public person to hide who he is, he also was the nascence of the "Remove MichaelMoore.com From Wikipedia" war. All of it is quite silly, and he is continuing with this disruptive behavior. --David Shankbone 22:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't forget the list of 'documentaries' with Jackass that he wrote under his real name that he tried to use in all the Michael Moore articles too. •smedleyΔbutler• 23:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone is trying to speedy . Given the refs we've dug up in just an hour (9), I think we've more than established he is notable and the article is worthy of Wikipedia. Could someone pelase remove the tag so we can get on? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• At long last, Jimbo has finally weighed in. Wise man, that one. - Crockspot 23:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, good call by Jimbo. But THF should clearly not be editing the Moore article, or related articles, because his day job conflicts with NPOV on that subject. As long as he's content to steer clear of editing those articles, and not promote his own columns, which I believe is what he's agreed, then there is no problem to solve. Sure, we all know who he is, but we don't need to say it, knowing is enough. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortnunately, Guy, some people (including administrators) seem to think that they do need to say it, and to keep saying it — replying to a request to stop by either linking to the rename log, or by using "Mr" followed by his surname. ElinorD (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

And no-one has been blocked, the only way to stop them is an admin to block them. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard, an attempt to draw a line under this. I will also have a word with David, who seems to be the main offender. Guy (Help!) 07:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin intervention needed: User:Cyde WP:POINT and WP:HARASS and WP:STALK violation after warning

I asked Cyde politely, as did multiple admins, both on User talk:Cyde and in the thread above, not to violate WP:HARASS policy on personal information, and he makes this edit, edit-warring to do so.

Cyde also recreated from the CSD pile page history that had been deleted as a BLP violation on the same article. How do we treat regular editors who recreate CSD'd attack pages? Why is it okay when an admin uses sysop tools to do the same thing?

This is all very obviously aimed at harassing me. What is the legitimate good-faith reason for taking these actions? Why is an admin allowed to harass a legitimate editor just because that admin disagrees with the editor's politics? THF 23:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I see this as a dispute over application of policy, and needs resolving. I do not believe this is the correct venue. LessHeard vanU 23:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think Cyde is acting in bad faith. As I stated above, this is far from a clear case of harassment or stalking. Indeed the situation appears novel- concerning the effect of a wikipedia's off-wiki identity on their editing here (rather than the effect of their editing on their off-wiki activity - e.g. threats and harassment in real life). How it is dealt with needs to be discussed carefully. But antagonising THF does seem unhelpful. WjBscribe 23:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The template was added by DavidShankbone, who has been in dispute with THF for some time, and was removed by Iamunknown, who pointed out that the editor had never edited the article or the talk page, and should be afforded some privacy. It was then readded by Cyde, and removed by Cool Hand Luke. I fully endorse the removal. ElinorD (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Haha, cute, I didn't even realize I was "edit warring" because I didn't check the history to see if it had previously been entered. As for undeleting the history, that's common when an article is deleted under CSDs, then later undeleted because notability has been established. If there are specific diffs you think are bad, those can be deleted, but if they're just everyday vandalism, probably not worth worrying over. --Cyde Weys 23:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, the reason the notable Wikipedian template is used is to make it clear who the subject of the author is, so anyone can catch it if the subject goes back through and tries to edit his article. --Cyde Weys 23:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Cyde, if you look at the now deleted revisions of that page you will see that you also undeleted a rather nasty attack article that had been at that location. I realise that you didn't do so deliberately but I hope you can understand why that would have upset THF. WjBscribe 23:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that the page be returned to a non-attack version, and protected. The notable Wikipedian template is not presently required, since the identity of subject/wikipedian is already on several pages, and serves no useful purpose currently. When this is resolved then the case can be made. LessHeard vanU 23:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I promise I will never touch that article, or even participate in the inevitable AFD. Like I need that aggravation. THF 23:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

On that basis, I suggest, the template is not required. LessHeard vanU 00:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Cyde, why did you undelete the article? Were you asked you? Was there some deletion review? Or did you just decide to (after getting into a dispute with THF)? ElinorD (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Elinor, instead of suggesting foul motives, please read Cyde's comment up just a little ways? "As for undeleting the history, that's common when an article is deleted under CSDs, then later undeleted because notability has been established." - I don't think he decided to do it after getting into a dispute with THF, and I think it was inappropriate to say that he did after he made his comment. That said, I understand if you just missed his comment (since this whole dispute is moving so quickly). --Iamunknown 23:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. I apologise, and in fact, I had missed his comment. I had not realised that it was an undeletion of a history after the article had been recreated by someone else; I thought it was an undeletion of the article. ElinorD (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a personal dispute and should go to RfCU. Cool Hand Luke 23:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Who do you think needs to be checkusered? Or do you mean RfC - in which case, who do you think should be the subject/ Risker 00:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Cyde ofcourse with his constant violations of WP:HARASS. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why you are answering a question directed to Cool Hand Luke, but I wonder just what you think a checkuser on Cyde would show? Risker 00:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I was assumeing he ment RFC, as Cydes conduct and blatent violation of rules must be brought to an end. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, should read "RfC". THF says that several users have tried and failed to resolve this with Cyde. I'm not sure what admin functions would help here, but it looks like a non-frivolous RfC could be opened. Cool Hand Luke 01:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's WP:RfC/U; that's probably what you were thinking.Proabivouac 01:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Quoted from above:

I see this as a dispute over application of policy, and needs resolving. (....) LessHeard vanU 23:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I would say that this is a dispute over application of several policies. First it was "attack sites" and whether MM.com should be considered one. Then it was 3RR and blocking of an editor who was edit warring over a link. Then it was WP:HARASS and whether it should apply to public individuals. It just keeps ballooning. *sigh* --Iamunknown 00:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Then the next decision is the appropriate venue. It may be that this is a meta-policy dispute, in that infractions of one policy may or may not depend on whether this dispute contravenes another. Might it be easier if we just passed it over to a Mike Godwin or Foundation sub-page, since the ramifications may need considering? I have no idea how to even broach the subject. LessHeard vanU 00:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I wish Essjay was here to help sort this out.--ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hahahahahahahahaha Mike R 01:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, ZimZalaBim is (in all probability) correct... Gracenotes^T § 03:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

To get Godwin involved, all you have to do is compare somebody to Hitler or Nazis. *Dan T.* 01:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Foundation (or Mike Godwin) would not want to touch this unless all other avenues have been explored, & they couldn't duck the issue. Sheesh, if this molehill hadn't been made into such a mountain to begin with, we'd all be busy at other things. (Or maybe arguing over something else...) -- llywrch 02:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Cyde has now edit warred and violated WP:3rr to keep the the Violations of WP:HARASS in many different articles, at what point is this policy going to be enforced. I can nolonger remove the the Harassment as i've been Warned Off by some of Cydes mates dispite everything i've done is Mandated by the word Must in WP:HARASS. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, as several people have told you, Hypnosadist, you are mistaken in your interpretation, and not only has Cyde NOT violated 3RR, you have about 10RR in several places. Cease and desist. SirFozzie 02:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeing some people are haveing a problem, i'll post the relivent bits of WP:HARASS so you can read them;

1.4 Posting of personal information Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives.

AND

2 Off-wiki harassment Harassment of other Wikipedians in forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation creates doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. As per WP:NPA#Off-wiki personal attacks, off-wiki harassment can and will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases. In some cases, the evidence will be submitted by private email. As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely.

Harassment of other Wikipedians through the use of external links is considered equivalent to the posting of personal attacks on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that links to off-site harassment, personal attacks or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted "under any circumstances" and must be removed. Such material can be removed on sight, and its removal is not subject to the three-revert rule. Repeated or deliberate inclusion of such material can be grounds for blocking.

Notice The Arbitration Committee has ruled that links to off-site harassment, personal attacks or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted "under any circumstances" and must be removed. Such material can be removed on sight, and its removal is not subject to the three-revert rule. See its right there, now what bit of policy supports your position that its right for Cyde to Harass editors when the rules say he can't. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the entire point of the case. Attack links are banned only when the inclusion and/or use of said links are done for the express purpose of attacking a user, not when the link is being discussed in an encyclopedic fashion as a community. In this case, the purpose of the inclusion of the link was to discuss the link, not to attack THF. In your rush to comply with the letter of the policy, you seem to have forgotten its spirit, and on Wikipedia, we follow the spirit of the law, not its letter. —Kurykh 03:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No it was done to attack thats why they were reposted again and again on this article and on many talk pages, not for encyclopedic value. Cyde is running a campain of harassment against THF by posting his legal name where-ever he can in an attempt to to prove that THF can't have privacy. Well THF can when Cyde is blocked and de-sysoped for this ongoing harassment. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

PS nowhere in the policy does it say "Attack links are banned only when the inclusion and/or use of said links are done for the express purpose of attacking a user, not when the link is being discussed in an encyclopedic fashion as a community" BLP issues would not be discussed on here while posting the blp violation for all to see. That would be delt with on IRC or by email, and like BLP these links must be deleted first then argued they are not BLP later in private. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You are still following the letter, not the spirit of the law. We have a word for people who do that too much, you know.. And you will need to prove that Cyde is harassing THF, which you have not done AFAIK. —Kurykh 04:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, when there is a wide disagreement on the interpretation of the portion of policy, then one should stop and start discussing instead of reverting ad infinitum because you think you're right and everyone else can just burn in hell (slight exaggeration), should you not? —Kurykh 04:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There is not "wide disagreement on the interpretation of the portion of policy" there are people who want the policy enforced as it is writen and those that don't want it to be applied because MM is cool. There is no interpretation to be done. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 04:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Because MM is cool"? Please, stop exposing yourself to further mockery. And if it's true to any extent, please back that ridiculous allegation up. —Kurykh 04:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, your interpretation of policy is not "the" interpretation of policy. Just because you say so does not make it so. —Kurykh 04:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No the meanings of words in the english language make it so! And ofcourse the last redout of those who have found that policy goes against them Wikilawyering. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 04:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"please back that ridiculous allegation up" Read the posts of the editors opposing the implementation of policy, its all THF attcking MM, THF has ultra-conservative POV etc etc. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 04:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"And you will need to prove that Cyde is harassing THF, which you have not done" His repeated posting of information clearly and explicitly banned by WP:HARASS means CYDE is Harassing THF, very simple. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 04:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Did I say you were wikilawyering? No I did not, if you will be so kind to reevaluate my words. And you still have not replied to my main premise, that you are following the letter of the law, but not it's spirit. Words used in the English language do not come in black and white, and often what seems to be said was not said, as shown in the above duly-indicated example. Your argument is currently a logical fallacy, as you are using the premise that Cyde is violating WP:HARASS as a given truth, not as something that has been asked to be proven, as I have asked you to do. —Kurykh 04:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Its spirit is to protect wikipedians from harassment. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 04:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It is also of a number of people's opinions here that the inclusion of the link is not intended as harassment. —Kurykh 04:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict -- no foolin') Hypnosadist, for the last several minutes you have been engaged in a multi-front argument on this matter. No progress is being made: you haven't changed your mind, nor has anyone else. And you are dangerously close to being banned for a substantial amount of time. Why not take Jimbo's advice, leave the computer & watch a funny movie? Nothing's going to happen in the forseeable future except that someone will lose her/his temper -- don't let it be you. -- llywrch 04:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking your advice now i've won all those arguments, see you all tomorow. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 05:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"you haven't changed your mind" Of course not as WP:HARASS has not changed, not one arguement has stood up to the policy. The nearest is Kurykh with following policy==wikilawyering, and thats it. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 04:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that you are also describing yourself while misinterpreting all of my arguments. The reason why I am not changing my mind is because you have not given me reason to do so. And your insinuation that I am disregarding WP:HARASS is fallacious. —Kurykh 05:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You use a lot of big words, so what part of; The Arbitration Committee has ruled that links to off-site harassment, personal attacks or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted "under any circumstances" and must be removed. Such material can be removed on sight, and its removal is not subject to the three-revert rule. do you not understand because its writen in very plain english. Cyde has repeatedly posted privacy violations (his legal name) against (a) Wikipedian. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 05:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deal with things in their proper places

I don't presume to know if THF is a public person or not, but I followed the link to the article, and for what it is worth, I'd never heard of him before. I had heard of Michael Moore before. But seriously, if there is real harassment going on in the real world out there, outside the pseudonymity of Wikipedia, then deal with it out there, not in here. I say the same for anyone suffering harassment outside Wikipedia. Deal with off-site harassment off Wikipedia (hint: do what you would do if it was a non-Wikipedian doing the harassment). Deal with on-site harassment on Wikipedia. Is this a workable principle to move forward with? Carcharoth 03:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, as all any group has to do to push thier POV is intimidate the editors of the opposite POV off wikipedia, if that starts to happen on a regular basis (as it is starting to do) then there will be no editors left. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. Intimidation on and off Wikipedia should be stopped, but Wikipedia can only deal with intimidation on Wikipedia. Allegations of intimidation off Wikipedia needs to be dealt with by other authorities, as it is outside Wikipedia's "jurisdiction". Carcharoth 04:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes but wikipedia has to help with other authorities as it has a duty of care over all of us. Also it should start taking legal action against those sites which harass editors. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 04:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

We are not lawyers. We do not sue people. How hard is it to get that through you? —Kurykh 04:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

We hire lawyers there in the yellow pages!^{(Hypnosadist)} 05:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

We are not the yellow pages for God's sake! —Kurykh 05:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Of course we are not thats why we need a copy to call us some good lawyers. Most states in america have anti-stalking laws and anti-hacking laws, we should use these to the full to protect this project. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 05:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hypnosadist, please go to the bottom of this page and click on "Privacy Policy." Read it thoroughly. There is no place in that policy that says "Wikipedia will defend you if somebody figures out who you are in real life." That policy is a FOUNDATION policy that supersedes any policies we write for en-WP. Risker 04:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The privacy policy has nothing to do with outing, i've never typed my name into wikipedia under GFDL, and we still oversight things like BLP dispite GFDL.^{(Hypnosadist)} 05:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The GFDL is our copyright license, not our privacy policy. —Kurykh 05:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

YES and i've never typed my real name in anywhere on here, the privacy policy covers the edits i make. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 05:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm lost. Does anyone dispute that your identity is private? If so, please provide a diff. --Iamunknown 05:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No its not in dispute because i was never stupid/short sighted enough to give my name out on a site that was just ment to be a collective editing of an encyclopedia but insted has become the most dangerous part of the NET. I don't think people should be punished for thinking wikipedia would be a nice educated place, especially when wikipedia does not have a "15 days since the last editor was forced off wikipedia by death threats to his family IRL" sign on the front. If the current level of risk was clearly explained to editors very few people would join.^{(Hypnosadist)} 05:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I quite agree that people should be provided with sufficient information about the risks to their privacy prior to making their first edit; that would certainly reduce the number of people feeling this place is a free-for-all as well, and could even potentially reduce vandalism. Risker 05:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

We do do that, don't we? It's just that people ignore it, like the "end user agreements" people see when they install software. Sorry if I'm mistaken. —Kurykh 05:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.