Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Due to the magnitude of the request, I'd like to bring the issue in the attention of ArbCom members and checkusers. Currently there is a serious backlog of indefinately blocked IPs which can be observed at Special:BlockList.

Of these 20,411 are indef blocked single IP and 203 are indef blocked IP ranges. Some of these blocks come from as far back as 8 February 2004. nl:User:RonaldB suggested that of the older indef blocked IPs, "vast majority is dynamic, so indef block is meaningless and superfluous".

I'd like to request a spring cleanup but would like the input of ArbCom members and checkusers. Thanks.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 01:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There are undoubtedly some that can be reverted. However, one must differentiate between hard-blocked and soft-blocked. (Hard-blocked IPs will prevent anyone except for an administrator from editing.) There is also some difference in opinion on how dynamic a lot of those IPs may be: certain IPs show as "dynamic" but in fact are assigned to servers that don't break their sessions for years. Having said that, we did a very big cleanup a few years back, but it seems we've had some creep again. I'd suggest a task group including administrators, those with experience in sock/long term abuse areas, and checkusers be set up. They should probably start looking at the oldest IP/range blocks and work their way forward. While they're at it, the user pages of dynamic IPs should probably be stripped of "sockpuppet" tags (they're actually quite pointless, and insulting to the next user with that IP). I'd also suggest perhaps a very focused look at the last 6 months of indef IP/range blocks to see how reasonable they are. My suspicion is that at least half are unnecessary and/or unhelpful. This would give us some factual basis to initiate a discussion aimed at establishing some guidance/guidelines for administrators placing such blocks. Risker (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel even the most notorious Open Proxies should be given finite blocks (say 1-5 years) and perhaps be delegated to global blocks. This would give us a mechanic to timely verify the status of these IPs. Exception to that general principle can be made of course. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 03:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Your point about global blocking is a good one. Often we will find that when an IP or IP range comes up for global blocking on the checkuser mailing list, it has already been blocked locally; lifting the local block and applying a global block would make more sense. I am going to draw the attention of local checkusers and stewards to this thread via the checkuser mailing list. Risker (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I also have meta:User:とある白い猫/English Wikipedia open proxy candidates if they want to go through it. This page lists all indef blocks. It may simplify things if multiple people go through the same list noting what they have checked. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 04:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Has there been any progress on the issue? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, although this is because this doesn't fall within the remit of the Arbitration Committee: we resolve final disputes, and don't take very much to do with the checkusers – over and above electing them. Regards, AGK [•] 19:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem seems to me is that sysops and checkusers alike need some sort of "go ahead" to handle the ancient blocks. Perhaps such a discussion on ArbCom mailing list may yield some sort of consensus on the matter. The results would be posted on the noticeboard. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 21:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Should I file an arbitration case then? The collateral damage stemming from the issue needs some sort of a review somewhere. This problem wont resolve itself. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 05:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

How about posting an RfD suggesting that we remove a bunch of these old blocks and monitor them to see if there is any more disruption, re-blocking as needed? It will most likely come back with an overwhelming consensus to do that, and then you can go to AN and ask for help. I think arbcom is a dead end; this really seems to be outside of arbcom's scope. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects for discussion? Do you mean an WP:RFC? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 10:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

A solid suggestion would be most helpful. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Y'all have banned me from topics that aren't even on my radar. No harm there. It's just that y'all totally missed my core complaints, which were about various users (including two admins) abusing Wikipedia and using invalid sourcing. Your unwillingness to strip authority from the two admins, who actually caused this problem in the first place, does not speak well of your process. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Could I get some clarification on the extent of Baseball Bugs topic ban. Is it to include the entire Wikipedia:Reference desk where Bugs is a frequent contributor and the occasional transgender/leaking of information topic comes up? Or does it apply only to the sections where the question is related to his topic ban? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It would typically prohibit him only from participating in sections relating to transgender issues or people. AGK [•] 09:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Those topics seldom arise on the ref desks, and if they do at some point in the future, I can easily let someone else answer. FYI, I am supportive of transgender rights. The claims that I'm prejudiced against, I find offensive in the extreme. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I suspect that most of the editors involved in that discussion are supportive of transgender rights, so it must have been really insulting to them to be told they were engaging in "hatespeak" and "discrimination" for having a diverse opinion on the move proposal. One thing I've noticed with activists in WP is that all they care about is getting an article "on message." Anyone who stands in the way of that is the enemy, even if the other person generally supports the cause being espoused. Cla68 (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't I know it. 5 years ago, I found myself defending the Sarah Palin article against a boatload of POV-pushers. I don't even like Palin. But I thought Wikipedia should be better than what it too often is. I still think so, despite this recent fiasco. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @Baseball Bugs: By any sensible reading the diffs in the findings provide no evidence at all that you were being discriminatory or engaging in "hatespeak". Bizarre. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think your link #David Gerard's use of tools should be Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute#David Gerard's use of tools -- Diannaa (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done NE Ent 16:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Kudos to Salvio for all the time and effort he put into this case. It was not his draft to write but he picked up the ball admirably. ThemFromSpace 17:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Does remedy #7 (indefinite-duration restrictions on David Gerard's use of the admin tools) represent a new strategy for the Committee? I vaguely recall something similar being suggested last year or the year before, but rejected on the grounds that the community/committee (I can't remember which) believed that people could be only a) full admins or b) not admins at all. I have to say that I'm not comfortable with this remedy: it sets David up to gaming-type complaints, and if his judgement is so faulty that an indefinite duration ban on him using the tools on a topic is needed then he probably should no longer have access to the tools unless he first passes a RFA. Nick-D (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There have been topic-banned admins before. The concept that has been rejected is restricting access to individual tools, i.e. "admins that can't delete articles" or "admins that can't block people". All this restriction really is is a statement that Gerard is considered involved with a particular topic area.—Kww(talk) 00:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, thanks for setting me straight here. Nick-D (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you to the committee for your time, effort, and patience in this case. DPRoberts534 (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• 'David's actions violated the administrator policy sections on accountability, wheel war and involved administrators.' - yet he's somehow still an admin. What does it take to get desysopped these days? Blocking Jimbo Wales? Robofish (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might consider that the Committee does not agree with your evaluation of David's actions -- and in any case, we've seen some desysopings by the committee in the recent past: Ironholds is the most recent, with SchuminWeb before that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Robofish's comment is a direct quote from the decision. He does pose an interesting question. Hot Stop talk-contribs 13:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Error in finding

I have to agree that the Committee has unfairly vilified Baseball Bugs by stating that he's a bigot without providing suitable diffs as evidence. You cannot call somebody a bigot without having a solid basis. This statement should be re-drafted, or better diffs should be found:

22) During the course of the dispute, Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) frequently accused other participants in the dispute of malice [1], [2] [3]; engaged in discriminatory speech based on his personal view of the article subject's actions [4] [5] [6] [7]; and needlessly personalised the dispute [8]. (emphasis added)

It could be changed to:

22) During the course of the dispute, Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) frequently accused other participants in the dispute of malice [9], [10] [11]; engaged in soapboxing based on his personal view of the article subject's actions [12] [13] [14] [15]; and needlessly personalised the dispute [16].

My draft justifies the result without overstating the editor's wrongdoing. Please consider making that repair for the sake of preserving the Committee's authority. Why do you need to call it "descriminatory speech" when the less disputable term "soapboxing" gets the job done equally well? Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 13:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the proposed decision page, several arbitrators opined that the term "discriminatory speech" in this context was suboptimal, and the relevant principle was reworded to use different words. The term did survive as an artifact in some of the findings. I would not read too much into that fact, and certainly not a determination that Baseball Bugs is a bigot. I am not sure whether Baseball Bugs would want further attention drawn to this matter, but (speaking only for myself and not for the Committee) if he were to make or support a request for amendment, I would not object to modifying the wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As one who calls himself a "liberal American patriot", I'll admit to some degree of soapboxing as to the subject's public actions (especially the actions of the subject's attorney). I deny being bigoted against the nature of subject's private/personal issues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think somebody was copying and pasting the wording from one finding to the next and did not realize that there were differences, and the voting arbitrators probably did not scrutinize every word and every diff. This is the type of clerical error that ought to be corrected without a lot of fuss. Jehochman ^Talk 15:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if any other arbitrators have a view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with this change being made whichever way is deemed procedurally necessary. Courcelles 19:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this precedent, I would think it best for ArbCom to refrain from using legal terms such as "discriminatory" with respect to user behavior in their decisions. In this case, the users may not be as readily identifiable, but they still potentially are, so it's important to minimize reputational and legal risks. And let's stay at our place, that is refer to behavior in light of wikipedia policies, not domestic law. Cenarium (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should treat all editors as if they were identifiable people because every editor has the right to identify themselves, and there is also a chance that any editor could be outed, even though it is against policy. We can call a spade a spade, but we need to have solid evidence to do so. The finding in question is clearly in error and should be fixed. Jehochman ^Talk 12:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Newyorkbrad and Courcelles that this wording can and should be changed (note that Courcelles proposed the finding). However, three arbitrators (even the drafter of that proposed finding) can't go in and make a change like that. If more arbitrators opine here, then maybe. Otherwise the best course of action is (as Newyorkbrad suggests) for Baseball Bugs (or possibly Jehochman) to request an amendment. Procedurally, it would be best to strike the previous finding and replace it, rather than amend it (a subtle difference). Carcharoth (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a quorum of arbitrators to post a note here confirming Carcharoth's suggestion to strike and replace the finding? Jehochman ^Talk 13:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support the change and would rather we did it de plano instead of having to go through the waste of time of an amendment request... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be preferable. I make it four so far. I think six is needed. In addition, all arbitrators who voted on the proposed decision should be notified about this, so they can veto this change if they object. Carcharoth (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not the sort of thing that Motions were intended to handle? Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What we are holding is basically a motion that doesn't come attached to an enormous trail of bureaucracy. AGK [•] 19:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I am fine with the change proposed. AGK [•] 19:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• FWIW, I support the proposed change, and I previously argued that Baseball Bugs was not engaged in discriminatory speech, so I’m glad that that may be removed. But, the finding still would accuse him of attributing “malice” to other editors. That’s a very serious accusation by ArbCom, and incorrect. In ordinary speech, malice means the intention or desire to do evil; ill will. What Bugs actually said is that certain other editors were advocacy zealots, twisting facts, with bias, and engaging in malfeasance. All very confrontational, but Bugs did not, as far as I know, accuse anyone of desiring to do evil or of bearing ill will. As we all know, your typical POV-pusher and rule-breaker often has the best of intentions to improve an article and spread the TRUTH, and I don’t think Bugs attributed “malice” to anyone. Change it to “malfeasance”, if you like, but picking the word "malice" is simply false.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Motion postedhere. Risker (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to pursue an RfC to establish a third party standing that would allow any Wikipedia editor in good stead to file a request for the modification of an Arbcom sanction on behalf of any sanctioned user who would otherwise be eligible to file the same request for themselves. I hope this is not the worst idea ever proffered, but please; do tell me why it is a bad idea—or if it has merit. Thank you.—John Cline (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely not the worst idea ever proffered. (For a reference to the worst idea ever proffered, see my vote comment on the current case request on the main RFAR page.) However, but in general, it's not a good use of the arbitrators' or the community's time to address a request for amendment of a sanction where the editor under the sanction isn't interested in having it modified. And if the sanctioned editor does want it modified, ordinarily he or she can presumably ask for that himself or herself—unless it's a long-term-blocked or banned user, in which case the way back is through BASC in the first instance. Is there a type of situation I am not thinking of here? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no. The amount of time and energy that is devoted to most cases often exceeds what is reasonable, and it would not be helpful to provide a mechanism whereby that process can be extended indefinitely by well-meaning third parties. Wikipedia is a website hosting an encyclopedia—it is not our role to ensure that absolute justice is done at all times, or that all possible avenues are pursued to the bitter end. It is standard practice, both here and in real life, that there will be people who disagree with the resolution of any dispute, but there is already too much focus on bickering rather than the encyclopedia, and what is needed are procedures to streamline arbitration, not extend it. Johnuniq (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that kind of question come up a number of times: "How about un-banning so-and-so?" And the immediate (and totally sensible) response is, "If so-and-so wants to be un-banned, let so-and-so make the request." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think this is a good idea. We already have a surfeit of people who treat Wikipedia as a moot court. Creating a semi-formal public defender's office is the last thing we need, and will reinforce some of the worst editorial tendencies we currently suffer from. Historically, something similar existed in the Association of Members' Advocates, and it was shut down as a disaster. MastCell ^Talk 23:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for coupling kindness and candor to dissuade me. I appreciate that consensus can change, seeing today is not the day for such change. Peace.—John Cline (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm apparently too late to the table (as an aside, should proposals be abandoned less than four hours after being floated? Answering myself, Yes, in some cases, but not this one)

I am firmly in support, even recognizing that Arbcom has a full plate and this just adds to it. I have two examples in mind. I've read the sanctions against user:Collect and the term "gobsmacked" seems apropos. I'm not sure the transgressions, if there were any, are worth a reminder, much less a sanction with teeth. While I wish Collect had not drawn the line in the sand (and I understand some think he will voluntarily return, I am sympathetic to his position. I can fully understand why he might refuse to put a case forward for his defense. Were I allowed to, I would. I can think of another editor, who if banned would refuse to mount an appeal. Both are significant contributors, and I would want to find some way to help them return.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Convince him to plead his own case? Suggest arguments to him on his talk page? Tell him you support him? Those seem more likely to be helpful, then what's called officious intermediaries. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick; I wouldn't say you were late at all, but rather, right on time. I appreciate seeing your comment; encouraged at knowing I am not the sole inhabitant of this island where my thoughts reside. Your prose well reflects my motives and desire. It did occur to me that angst derived by anticipating the burden of an excessive workload is misplaced unless it directly acknowledges a corresponding excess—our growing affinity to Arbcom sanctions and lighthearted reservation of the heavy hand. Clearly, something has gone awry which needs to be fixed; even if this approach is not suitable in itself—in my opinion of course.—John Cline (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alanscottwalker; I appreciate the sentiments carried in your counsel. The user's talk page would be a great venue for vetting the viability of an Arbcom request for modification—even greater if the sanctioned user was allowed to participate. If an admin had revoked xe's talk page access in concert with an indef block for cause, I could ask for them to be allowed participation, with confidence that it would be fairly considered; even accomplished. I feel the committee is far to removed when it will not allow one to ask for a banned user to be granted a talk page modification so we could discuss their return; on wiki! And I have not abandoned hope that one day it will—today being fine for me.—John Cline (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite a distance from the user Collect, who is merely topic-banned for a finite amount of time (presumably a work-on-something-else-for-awhile restriction) to someone whose behavior has been so bad that they are not allowed to use their own talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WRT the comments anent the "sanctions" imposed on me - the appeal is formally in the hands of Mr. Wales. It has three parts - the violation of procedure (including the threat to block me for "bickering", an arb who injected himself into the case and then decided to support sanctions as not really being sanctions after he had already asserted that sanctions require strong evidence, the insertion of evidence against a person after the evidence and workshop pages were closed, the addition of parties after the sanctions were proposed, etc.), the factuality od the "finding of fact" itself )I find no prior case where calling a proposed hypothetical claim "bosh and twaddle" was ever considered a violation of any policy or guideline at all), and the remit question as to whether ArbCom has the authority to assert sanctions where no violations of policy or guidelines have occurred at all per their own findings of fact. This election season, I shall iterate my questions from last year and add some further pertinent questions, with the express aim of reeling in what appears to have been an exceptionally poor year for the committee. Including their present ambition to define certain opinions of editors, expressed as opinions, and not violative of any laws, to be sanctionable per se. IMHO, if an opinion is one which is not contrary to law, it is absurd for Wikipedia to assert that it is so far "wrong" as to be sanctionable here. As Voltaire never actually wrote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I disapprove of any arb or candidate who avers otherwise about the ability of editors to express their own opinions clearly stated as such in collegial discussions on any topic. WRT the topic of this section: I support the concept of amicus cases. AFAICT, the committee already has that right per policy establishing the committee. It does not have the right to impose sanctions on individual editors for non-sanctionable behavior, nor to deny such editors the rational right to contest such decisions by threatening them with being banned or blocked from the project. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contextual note: TPM proposed decision, Collect finding. NE Ent 12:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can be censured for using G-rated terms like "bosh and twaddle", something's wrong with this picture. I can think of any number of totally active editors, who are very quick to attack another's views as "nonsense", and have never been censured for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collect wasn't censured for using the term "bosh and twaddle". I know he keeps making that assertion, but really, your critical-thinking alarm should be going off and you should look at the actual case pages before accepting his claim at face value. The Committee found that he was "dismissive of other users' views and needlessly inflamed tensions with the other disputants". The validity and fairness of that finding are certainly open to dispute, but the constant mis-statement of the actual grounds for the sanction is a bit dishonest. MastCell ^Talk 16:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collect didn't make that assertion here. The Fof lists five diffs. One of which contains the infamous "bosh and twaddle". The other four of which are less inocuous. Can you tell me which diff is really so egregious that it deserves even an admonition? I'm not suggesting that the five resonses deserve placement in the Hall of Fame of ideal responses, but I don't see a one that is deserving of Arbcom sanction. Do you?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of longstanding principles which relate to the TPM FOF: decorum and consensus building. They both derive in part from the dispute resolution policy. This in a nutshell says: "Resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages". In practical terms, the repeated use of snarky, dismissive language is never going to help resolve a dispute or help build consensus and is instead likelier to make the problems worse.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Davies I'm on board with finding ways to discourage snarky language. However, responses need to be proportionate. I just reviewed the five diffs and read a few subsequent edits to see if any were complained about by any at the time. I found no such complaints. Nor were any of the diffs introduced as evidence when the case was opened. So the level of snark was too low to produce a reaction by the target, and when all participants were asked to provide evidence to the committee, and did add over 300 links to the evidence page, yet didn't identify a single one of these diffs, how serious could they be? But let's not quibble over whether they were perfectly appropriate. Collect is a long-time editor not a newbie, and should be setting a better example. So I could support such a reminder. Not even an admonition. And most certainly not a ban. By all means use proportional measures to discourage snark, but the debate in this instance should be whether the five innocuous diffs deserve a reminder to avoid snark, or not. I say no, but it is a close call, and I can respect the opposite position. I cannot respect the notion that one revives a ban for items not introduced in evidence.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) As they say on the show "Law and Order", in the criminal justice system there's something called "without possibility of parole". When a sanction is indefinite at Wikipedia, the sanctioned person does not know if there is really any realistic possibility of getting it lifted, and might be loath to waste their time trying. The sanction ought to give a clue, like " indefinitely banned for life and all resistance is futile", versus "indefinitely banned but please check back with us in a year or two so we can look at your record ." Personally, I have an indefinite topic ban that I thought was preposterous, but I don't intend to waste my time trying to get it lifted without any indication that such could be successful.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(EC @RD) Which I did in the case at hand. The FoF is pure and utter "bosh and twaddle" indeed. If the "evidence " which I was not given any chance to rebut under threat of being blocked is that persuasive to you, than you damn well ought not be an "arbitrator" at all in my honest opinion. And I sincerely doubt you would relish being added to a case after the sanction was decided upon being based on such "evidence" at all. And all AGK could find was a tiny handful of "snarky" comments?

• "Wikipedia has this really weird rule that using a source to say what it does not say is actually a teensy bit iffy. Find a source which says the TPM qua TPM is "anti-immigration". I sincerely doubt you can find such a source. As for saying I "fiddled" with what you precisely wrote - that is the path of Dali" was in response to

No, Collect. You should stop fiddling with what I actually say to make me "appear to assert" something else. What I actually said is, While some factions of the movement try to avoid issues like immigration (as you noted with TP Patriots), most of the movement takes a very hard-line stance. Now if you'd like to inflate my "most" characterization to a full 82% based on your additional research, that's fine, but I wouldn't recommend it. Also from the source, They reserve their hostility for programs that fund the 'undeserving,' which puts the movement squarely in line with the long tradition of postwar American conservatism. Perhaps most interestingly, they have found that the movement resents illegal immigration more than any other social or economic phenomenon--even in places like Massachusetts, which is not a gateway for undocumented aliens. which is an order of magnitude more "snarky" than my response.

• "Scholarly works are not generally found on current events, and the bit about news organisations reprinting such works (the lines were initially intended to refer to medical and scientific claims about studies, not about news events!) is asinine when one looks at current events for which news organisations are, indeed, the best source. For example - do you really expect a "scholarly peer-reviewed source" on the Boston Marathon bombing which is not based on news reports? Stuff which is currently in the news is best served by using those sources. In the case of the TPM, the "scholarly journals" use .... the news reports! The idiotic claim that the TPM is specificially anti-immigration has been pushed many times by the same small number of editors and rejected by clear consensus of everyone else. 'Nuff said" was in response to

When considering how Wikipedia should convey descriptive information about the subject (TP movement), you must not create a false either/or structure. It is wrong, and a misapplication of policy, to claim that since a movement has a strong grassroots component or a vocal anti-illegal immigration component (qualities easily witnessed and therefore repeatedly noted by "news" sources), that somehow negates the reliably sourced fact that the movement also has strong astroturf and anti-immigration components. It doesn't. However, if there is reliably sourced refutation of these descriptions, that should be raised for discussion. which seems a teensy bit "uncollegial"

• "On matters of current events, generally newspaper articles represent how the public perceives those events -- there are no scholarly sources on such which are superior to the newspapers for public perception. This silliness about using "peer-reviewed sources" is not worthwhile when the events and groups are still current. Maybe in ten years or so we will have real scholarship on such, but we ain't there yet. "Onstant scholarship" tends to be "instantly worthless" has not a greain of snark or impropriety that I can see.
• "Complete bosh and twaddle" was in response to Snowded's snarky hyptothetical

If there was a scholarly article that made the claim that George Gnarph was a space alien then there would almost certainly be one which said the opposite. We reflect the balance of sources so its more than legitimate to ask for on that refutes a properly sourced statement if it is to be rejected. And which Snowded agrees was not an improper comment on my part, folks.

• "Show me any edit where I removed the allegations. You can't. And since we already had the allegations in the article, sourced to the Ombudsman cite, and the Ombudsman addressed it in detail, it is silly and wrong to keep his specific comments about it our of the article. More specifically, the assertion about "spitting" - the Ombudsman specifically found the incident to have been improperly handled by the Washington Post. Yet you seem to wish to keep that trivial point out as well. NPOV requires a neutral point of view in articles -- and keeping out the "neutral" and balancing part from a source used for the primary claim is contrary to absolutely non-negotiable policy. Cheers" which is borne out by my actual edits. The post to which I replied was

No, Collect. The fact that Congressmen said they heard the slurs is not controversial, and was already in the article. The "controversy" being manufactured is whether or not they made it up, and you decided to add only one half of the Ombudman's statements in that matter. Your "balance" is off. Where everybody knows your name. As I removed nothing, and I suggest "where everybody knows your name" is a solid 10 on the scale of Snarkiness,

I suggest that the net value of all the "evidence" is somewhat less than nil, and I cease to respect anyone who suggests otherwise. When I made a non-snarky reply to a person oozing snark, and I get yelled at, something is damn wrong. At least no one is suggesting that I am "bickering" here, a d threatening to block or ban me for addressing the absurd "evidence" against me worthy of a long topic ban~! Collect (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note the above deals with the entirety of the FoF - and I suggest that it weakens RD's cla8im that this represents anything remotely like normal ArbCom procedure whatsoever. MastCell's snarky comments here that this is only bosh and twaddle on my part fails quite utterly. His claim that I made a constant mis-statement of the actual grounds for the sanction is a bit dishonest. is a clear personal and blatant attack. I suggest that since I address every piece of evidence here that such a claim by him ought to be struck forthwith. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and don't forget the original complainant who wrote: But adding parties after a case is basically closed except for Arbs is just wrong. Having this "invitation to comment on the talk page of the Proposed decision" does not make up for not having Evidence open and a full case for those listed after the appropriate timeframe. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done, and Agree with Collect in that the only reason he was added to the case was that sanctions were proposed on ANI, so I added his name here under the presumption that whoever added him would likely be adding evidence which Collect should be allowed to rebut. Neither happened; keeping him in is as silly as keeping me in. Part of the ANI insanity, in which there was somewhat of a free for all. Let's not be guilty of repeating the ANI free for all, shall we?.

And a former arb wrote: So I haven't been following this case very closely, but the idea that the committee can impose punishments (however phrased) without supporting findings of fact shocked me back into commenting. As a former arbitrator with a reputation (and not undeservedly so) for favoring sanctions in virtually ever circumstance, I might be expected to be the one person cheering on the committee's proposed Kill them all, for the Lord will know his own approach. I do not.

An editor whom I was accused of "snark" about wrote "If I remember aright it was the Franciscan's who took most of the auto-da-fé decisions in respect of the Albigensian Crusade so it may be a feature of pious intent! Agree on lack of experience; generally engagement in controversial articles is not conducive to progress in Wikipedia admin & arbcom elections. The lack of experience is clearly showing at the moment and in effect they are looking to flag up a warning to any experienced editor to just keep out of anything that might ever get to Armcom.

More colourful quotes availbable on request. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original announcement

By motion of the committee, finding of fact 22, regarding Baseball Bugs, has been by the following

Has been what? Someone please fix the wording. Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, fixed. Legoktm (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support any of the sanctions given, these in particular.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't honestly think that the opinions of content editors matter? Have you seen Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review? In what can only be described as a power grab, ArbCom is now proposing that opinions of regular editors no longer count. Even worse, ArbCom has shut down the discussion without the community's approval,[17] despite numerous complaints from the community.[18] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that is better than hearing everyone say that Arb Com has kicked the civility can back to the community. We can't have it both ways. Maybe our opinions in the matter shouldn't count, and maybe they did and the overriding consensus of the community was to sanction those that offended enough people. That is exactly what this looks like to me. My issue here is that we cannot sanction opinion and that many of Bugs words were not a violation of anything but not sharing the same opinion of transgendered supporters. I don't see the actual words as going over the line without the context and yet even then, I myself was not at all offended. Of course I am not transgendered. Perhaps the question is....do I nee to be to have an opinion or be offended. Of course not and neither do those with opinions that may not seem popular or even the norm. The situation has shown me many things about our community. We are not all going to agree and that is how we move forward with any discourse- through discussion. To me this looks like a great way to tell people that LGBT subjects are far to sensitive for a general discussion on Wikipedia talk pages and...that may be correct.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• {Fixed properly). Black Kite (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom didn't have to ask for community input at all and they didn't "grab" power -- we gave it to them via election. NE Ent 01:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No we didn't. We placed them on a board. We didn't give, nor does anyone have, "power" or authority. What we did was elect editors to act on the communities behalf when needed. I would not call it power.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original announcement

All hail our future overlords. 50.45.158.239 (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the new position! I hope the hazing isn't too bad. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original announcement

Original announcement

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

Hum....the postings were done on a blog...offsite? Were any links from the site posted or linked to from this one? My efforts at NPA were to prevent linking to offsite outing efforts...so that's why I am curious as to whether any links from an "attack site" were posted here.--MONGO 20:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm not clear on how this case of offsite outing differs from all the other cases of offsite outing and harassment that arbcom has declined to action in the past because they happened offsite. Is this a sign that they're intending to hold the line more strictly in the future, or is there something special-worse about what Phil did? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Phil used non-public information gained via tools to out a user. Werieth (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It's all from public information that the outed user posted to Wikipedia (which is still present here) and other sites. (I have the list of links in question and went through it.) The outed user may claim otherwise, but they are incorrect to do so - they left their arse hanging out, for years. It wouldn't pass muster as material to out a user on-site, but it certainly passes muster as an exercise in applied journalism, which is what the post was. So the arbcom has now banned someone from Wikipedia for journalism about Wikipedia. Well done, that'll stop anyone ever doing that again after they've already left the site - David Gerard (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not strange. Critical or investigating journalists seldom work for the institutions they severly attack or reveal secret information about and if they did, they could hardly expect to hang on to the job. I hold users who reveal private information about other users in uttermost contempt and they should all be banned. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're assuming something (revealing private information) that actually hasn't been shown and (and this is the key point) wasn't at all needed - David Gerard (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recall how I was banned from Citizendium ... three years after the last of my 10 edits there. For comments about CZ made on another site. The intention was not, of course, to send me a message - David Gerard (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A couple of points. I didn't vote to ban Phil because I thought that discussion should be on this project; the overwhelming majority of "outings" over the years have been carried out by people who are already banned from Wikipedia, and it is rare that someone clearly identifiable as a specific Wikipedian in otherwise good standing does so. Generally speaking, when a non-banned user has posted outing information off-site, the community itself has chosen whether or not to ban the user (I can think of at least a few cases where that happened). I wrote to Phil personally to ask him to consider removing the non-public personal information involved from the blog (and only that information - even if I disagree with him on several points, I believe his blog is otherwise fair comment), but he responded very clearly that he had no intention of removing the information. I don't believe administrators should be posting that kind of information about other Wikipedians, no matter how strongly they disagree with them. Thus I supported the desysop. (Parenthetically, although I do not fall into the group voting to ban Phil Sandifer, I do not have a Wikipediocracy account, and rarely read the site.) Risker (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you feel you've achieved something? - David Gerard (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand how the information was non-public. Yes, the linkage was not made by the user on-wiki, sure. That said, the user had self-disclosed the information publicly to news organisations several years ago; I don't see how it is any more WP:OUTING than someone pointing out what my first name is. LFaraone 21:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  On-wiki as well, despite attempts to get later self-outings oversighted - David Gerard (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  By the way, the "outed" user has been posting recent photos of their participation in military sporting events to Wikipediocracy. So it's terrible that Phil outed them on Wikipedia ... except he didn't do that at all - David Gerard (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not all of the information was "disclosed to news organisations", and required linking together dispersed posts made over the course of many years on a wide range of websites to pull it all together, as David has indicated up above. It's precisely the kind of "sleuthing" that's been highly deprecated by this project for longer than I've been editing. Risker (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel you've achieved something? If so, what? - David Gerard (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak for the entire committee; however, I do believe that administrator permissions need to be linked to a level of trust from the community. The community has a long and remarkably consistent view that "outing" of other users is unacceptable; I do not believe those who conduct themselves in this way should hold administrator permissions until such time as the community itself has an opportunity to make its own views known through RFA. The desysop accomplishes that. Risker (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfair to ask the arbs whether they've "accomplished" something by banning him. They made their decision, and they stood by it. Asking them what they've "achieved" by banning makes the ban unfairly appear punitive. KonveyorBelt 23:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just asking what it's achieved makes it "appear" unfairly punitive? Are Wikipedia bans not supposed to achieve anything then? You can't even answer a mild question without worrying that you may "appear unfairly punitive". Appearing unfairly punitive I'd say is one of the least of your worries here.

By the way, what other encyclopaedia in history has accepted anonymous contributions?

But the user had outed himself, and it wouldn't have taken much to see that. Also this alleged "outing" took place off this site. Consistent much? These supposedly neutral, by numbers methods of deciding things aren't being applied consistently, and they were dubious methods of editing an encyclopaedia in the first place.

Not only *that*, there was a clear public interest to the off-site journalism. Wikipedia, this looks very bad. I am rethinking my whole "good as a first port of call" defence of Wikipedia right now. This looks so bad. Mirtar (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Risker, could you explain why you supported the desysop but did not support the ban? I'd also be interested in hearing from David Fuchs, Kirill Lokshin, and Carcharoth about why they opposed the motions. I have mixed feelings on the whole situation at present. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my post of 21:34 this date, where I explain my votes. Risker (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, interesting. So if Arbcom had only passed the first two motions, but a vote on the ban was held today on AN, how would you have voted in it? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, I would pay attention to what a broader range of the community had to say before I made a decision on how to vote on banning. I've been around long enough to be aware of many malicious outings that have occurred, several of which have informed English Wikipedia's current policies and practices (and ironically, Phil Sandifer was on the receiving end of possibly the most malicious of all, with threats to affect his real-world situation), so I tend to be relatively hardline on this; however, there may be some persuasive arguments from other Wikipedians, perhaps even some who have been on the receiving end of such treatment, that this particular situation should be considered differently. Risker (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Morwen notes below, she was on the receiving end of such creepiness from the very user we are talking about here, in the course of this very case. Your continued encouragement of his behaviour and painting him as victim does you very little credit - David Gerard (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for your reply. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A question for the arbcom: are you going to ban the hosts of Wikipedia Weekly #104 (User:Fuzheado, User:Jdforrester, User:Keilana, User:Kevin Gorman, User:WWB) for the same offence? If not, why not? - David Gerard (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Regardless of the banning, regardless of the availability of the material, anyone who has the inclination to do this should not have access to sysop tools. There is a lot of personal information out there that is not oversighted, only rev-del'd (especially in cases of editors accidentally editing logged-out) or in the content of deleted pages, and the user concerned is not the only one that Sandifer has railed against over this issue. This is clearly a prophylactic action, and in my opinion a correct one. Black Kite (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So that's all the Wikipedia Weekly hosts deadminned then? Time to get posting a request, obviously! - David Gerard (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can assure you I'm certainly not sitting through 95 minutes of Wikipedia editors talking (no offence to those concerned) to find out what you're actually talking about. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I suggest the ArbCom look at our fine article about the Streisand effect. Morwen (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arbcom is acutely aware of the Streisand effect, as is the user who was the subject of the outing. He made it clear that he felt that Arbcom should proceed, even knowing the potential for further repercussions. Risker (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the pseudonymity was shitty enough this is laughable. And speaking as someone who this user had creepily stalked during the case, I really can't object enough. Please reconsider this. Morwen (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reading the tweets from your Twitter account, which is linked to your account here, and mentioning things you said there about the Manning dispute is not stalking in any way, shape, or form. Please do not make such irresponsible allegations.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • • There wasn't just that. There was very creepy monitoring of my whereabouts and my comings and goings goin as far as a trawl through meet archives to see what pubs I'd been in years ago. You've been had. Morwen (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user in question is playing games with you - David Gerard (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. You've been had, and in a very detrimental way. Keegan (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was just saying to someone yesterday "I think the media cycle's well and truly over, I don't expect any more stories about this one." Well done, you've been trolled into doing it to yourselves - David Gerard (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I supported today's actions because it is unacceptable for an administrator, or for any editor sufficiently experienced to be aware of our policies and project norms, to escalate an on-wiki disagreement by publicizing the real-life identity, employer, and geographical location of a fellow editor, as Phil Sandifer ("Phil") did in this instance. The evidence reflects that Phil publicized this information about another editor ("C") after that editor took an on-wiki position (in favor of retaining the article title "Bradley Manning" for a time rather than immediately moving it to "Chelsea Manning") in disagreement with Phil's. Thereafter, when Phil was contacted and told his posting was inappropriate, he categorically refused to remove all or any part of the identifying information.

Phil and others have observed that identifying information about C could be pieced together from various posts, which indeed is how Phil identified him. But such "I only followed the breadcrumbs" arguments have rarely impressed me before, and they do not impress me here.

Phil writes that C is affiliated with the United States military and hence should have disclosed, during the Bradley/Chelsea Manning dispute and arbitration case, that C "is employed by [Chelsea Manning's] jailer." Thus, Phil contends, it was essential to identify C to demonstrate that C has a conflict of interest regarding whether the article should be called "Bradley Manning" or "Chelsea Manning." This argument is totally unpersuasive. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the editor's affiliation with the US military was relevant to the point Phil was making, his full name and certainly his geographical location were not.

The issue for me is not only that Phil posted non-public information about another editor following an on-wiki dispute, but that he still insists he did the right thing and refuses to remove all or any part of the information. I am left with little doubt that Phil cannot, even in name (since he has been inactive for years), remain an administrator on this project. Voting to ban him from the site altogether was a closer question for me, and if I had drafted the motion, I probably would not have included the 12-month minimum before he can appeal for the right to return. But I would have required that before making such an appeal he take down the non-public information, and since he says he will never do so, this is probably a moot point.

I resist any suggestion in the thread above that a double standard has been applied. As Risker points out above, most people who deliberately post non-public information either are already banned from Wikipedia or were never active on the project (to our knowledge) to begin with, whereas there is not and never is likely to be any doubt about who Phil Sandifer is. Anyone else who engages in comparable misconduct that comes to the Arbitration Committee's attention should expect a similar result. We do not have or claim broad jurisdiction to take action based on postings on other websites, but we can act in circumstances like the ones before us today, and it is proper that we do so.

Having said all of the above, given Phil Sandifer's long service to and previous dedication to Wikipedia, I am very sad that these actions had to be taken. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

So, having taken everything into account, you've banned a long-time positive contributor to Wikipedia for allegedly (but probably not) using private information found on Wikipedia about a user who spends his time trolling, outing and staking Wikipedians? Are you serious? Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at similar cases Arbcom took, declined, or ruled on during the past couple of months, setting aside the specific issue of adminship in this case here, I believe the lack of consistency of the body as a whole is sending very mixed signals. The Committee may not be bound by precedent, but a more consistent approach on off-wiki behaviour would be highly desirable. MLauba ^(Talk) 00:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Phil Sandifer was functionally retired from Wikipedia [19] I'm not seeing that this negatively impacts Wikipedia-the-encyclopedia; it's a reasonable arbcom decision. NE Ent 01:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument you could ban the the Primate of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church or the the Queen on the grounds that they don't contribute much to Wikipedia. Why not ban me? Mirtar (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta say people,looking at it from more or less outside, this looks remarkably bad. Mirtar (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be possibly be considered "sleuthing" to identify an editor who has already publicly identified himself, by full name and Wikipedia username, in the media? I'm tempted to provide the link to the article(s) myself, but the chilling effect from this decision makes me fear that simply doing so would engender an equally ridiculous rebuke or ban. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is some background information and rationale for my opposes to the motions that were recently published.

• We were informed about the blog post in question on 22 October 2013. The motions, for various reasons (other committee business, deliberating how best to handle this, and communicating with those responsible and affected by this), were not published until 6 November.
• Early on, I took the view that we shouldn't rush any action and should be wary of creating a Streisand effect that would draw more attention to a matter that was drawing relatively little response on-wiki (we were aware of the Wikipedia Weekly and retirement statements made by a couple of editors, but there was not much else). The only other place I think there was even indirect mention of this was in this talk page thread on David Gerard's talk page, where I made clear here that I disagreed with the approach being taken.
• The user in question had assured us that they would be able to handle any fallout from the higher profile that would result from us taking any action, but I am not convinced they fully understood what might happen. I did write to them explaining my opposition to the proposed actions.
• My argument against taking action was that we shouldn't be responding to off-wiki blog posts, as we have no control over what happens on other websites. It should be the responsibility of those affected by actions on other websites to take whatever action is needed, leaving us to deal with actions taken here. If Phil had made his comments on-wiki, I would have supported at least a desysop and probably a ban, but as Phil had to all intents and purposes left Wikipedia, I was not prepared to support actions that would stir things up again.

One final point: it is regrettable this may end up distracting from the larger picture. Some of the criticisms Phil and others have made are valid. Some of those issues need to be discussed, more so than what is being discussed here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom did the right thing here. The policy needs to be enforced consistently and firmly. Everyking (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consistently would be nice. Only one of the reasons that this doesn't look right is that it doesn't appear to be consistent. Mirtar (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see MONGO is still on the BADSITES kick after all these years, and it's still as futile and ridiculous as ever. But the current case is chock full of ironies in every possible direction, including the fact that the "outed" user in question was a fervent participant in the BADSITES wars... on my side, against suppression of off-site discussion of Wikipedia foibles, and as far as I'm aware never did any covering up of their real name, location, and occupation. And that user faced blocks/bans/sanctions on a number of occasions due to a tendency to "breaching experiments". So that's a funny user to be pushing for somebody else's ban for their own speech. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This does look like a successful breach experiment. Extraordinary and heartbreaking that it extended to a ban. – SJ + 02:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Dtobias...futile? Really! All I ever asked for was for users to not link to sites that stalk and out our editors...arbcom took it one step further in this case. Looks like BADSITES has been expanded, not contracted. As far as Risker and NYBrad's responses, I concur that the right decision was made, but again reiterate that this goes further than I ever thought possible. The necessity of mentioning the real ID of a user offsite to allude to a poor argument was the wrong thing to do, and continuing to do so after being asked not to indicates he didn't care about what may happen to him here.--MONGO 04:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My essay remains evergreen: User:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is bad policy... and this one too: Wikipedia:Sauce for the goose is (not) sauce for the gander *Dan T.* (talk) 12:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your stupid essay seems to be the sole "contribution" you've ever made to this website...an argument about why we should link to harassment has got to be one of the most idiotic wastes of server space I can think of.--MONGO 14:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To add now to this situation...is the committee prepared to start banning all those use another website to out editors?--MONGO 04:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The community, and not "the committee", have a fairly solid norm about deliberate actions by users targeting against other users when with Wikipedia editor's hats on (either on or off site, for harassment). This was not some naive good faith attempt to contribute to the project. It appears to be hard to interpret the action as anything other than a deliberate targeted attempt, by a long standing editor and administrator, trusted in his actions by his peer editors, to demonstrate that he has zero regard for their trust, their norms, their social expectations, the efforts (flawed I know) which they have communally set up to try and ensure some kind of consensus working approach. Many people are (rightly or wrongly) insensed by a debate or issue, that isn't generally a good reason for bad actions. He could have made the exact same points and actually helped the debate, without doing what he did. He's literate and verbally skilled. But he did as he did, clearly knowing exactly what he was doing, and knowing also it brought no project benefit at all to do so. It did not help trans* rights to do it as he did, it didn't help the manning debate or trans* prejudice in the world. It did nothing. He took a debate he was unhappy with on the project and undertook a personal targeted attack to someone else in that debate in a way he knew was anathema to his peers here in the consensus view. It was petty and sad, it was valueless, and he knew exactly how wrong it was and how his peers would take it. Given the committee is asked and voted by the community to act as the final backstop for community-created norms, it's hard to imagine he can have figured anything different would come of it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually spoken to trans people you know about whether they think Phil's post was helpful, or are you just presuming they would think it wasn't? 'Cos I know Trans Media Watch considered it most helpful, and they're a pretty sober and considered bunch with a track record of effectiveness in this area - David Gerard (talk) 11:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "outed" user has trolled the arbcom hard. They've taken their revenge on Phil, they've made the arbcom look like craven fools in the public eye, they've used you to damage Wikipedia's public reputation, and they're currently crowing about it on the troll sites (and posting photos of themselves at sports events at their place of employment). I would beseech you in the bowels of Christ to consider the bare possibility that you might have been completely played for suckers, but the first rule of arbcom is "error is impossible, always double down", so have fun - David Gerard (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful. I keep a fairly close eye on media (new, old and strange) coverage of wikipedia and if I didn't keep a vague eye on your twitter feed I wouldn't have noticed this at all. The case requires to much background to make any sense. In fact until I realised it was a spin-off of the manning clash (oh Zeus help us if she ever gets married and goes for a namechange) I couldn't make any sense of it. Among the groups that might have enough background knowledge to get it "arbcom bans a doxer" is a fairly defensible position.Geni (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I supported this motion and I still do. There are few things on Wikipedia I take a hard line on, but in this case there are two separate issues which I do take seriously. Firstly, there is posting of personal information. I believe that is unacceptable in any medium, it creates a chilling effect, stifles conversation and leads to harassment. I will accept that each case is different, discussing a person's employer to handle a CoI issue is very different to posting a vast swathe of information. The rule of thumb is to use as little possible information to make your point - and Phil didn't. He gave out identifying information which was not relevant to the point he was making. It doesn't help that Phil's been on the pointy end of such posts before so he knows the turmoil it can cause.

  As to David's comment that the banning arbitrators hang out at Wikipediocracy, the reason I signed up, my first post and nearly 60% of my total posts were talking to them about the issues of posting personal information and encouraging them to either not do it or at least be careful about how much information they post. Hardly what I'd call "hanging out".

  The second area I take a hard line is on the behaviour of administrators. Administrators are respected members of the community. We may know that administrators have no more voice than any other user, but the outside world doesn't. New members don't. Administrators need to hold themselves to the highest possible standard as they represent our community, whether they should or not, whether they like it or not.

  There was a reason I found this decision difficult, the rest of Phil's comments were valid criticism. Arbcom is a long, long way from infallible, as is the rest of Wikipedia. We need criticism. We need to hear where we've failed and suggestions of how we can do better, it's the only way we can improve. Phil was asked to take down the problematic part, not the criticism, just the problematic part. He dug his heels in and so, here we are. Worm^TT(talk) 08:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps it would be wise for the Committee to include a little disclaimer when it takes actions like these, along the lines of "This action was undertaken due to the user's conduct, and does not reflect an opinion of any viewpoints they hold." I, for one, can perfectly see the difference between banning and desysopping Phil for his egregious misconduct (which the Commitee had every right to do), and banning and desysopping him because he took a strong stand on the Chelsea Manning issue (which I think we can all agree would be wholly inappropriate for the Committee to do), but it seems some users cannot, and it leaves the Committee open to ugly smears. We saw this with Kiefer a few months ago—ArbCom bans user for protecting children and holding admins accountable—and we're seeing it now, and we'll see it again. It's not what these users say, it's how they say it, and what policies they choose to flagrantly disregard in doing so; but, in fairness, that distinction may not be obvious to all without it being explicitly said. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wouldn't help and would just make decisions more tl;dr. People are going to interpret the decisions through the lens of the ir own perceptions, regardless. NE Ent 11:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I too don't believe there was a major "outing" committed, seeing as the editor in question has, on multiple occasions, directly disclosed his on-wiki identity when talking about Wikimedia in the media. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • If the ArbCom is going to persist in this lunacy, some clarity would be appreciated about what exactly is and isn't prohibited. For example, are we allowed to link to the articles in which this user identifies himself by full name and username? Morwen (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally, I would say it depends on the context. If you want to link them to provide his full name on Wikipedia, no, certainly not. If the purpose is benign, but happens to give personal information or the link changes after the fact there shouldn't be any repercussions. If you want to send Arbcom (or just myself) that sort of information, we will hold it in confidence. As yet, I've seen nothing to say that the user has provided all the information that was published by Phil on wiki or at a media source, there must have been some searching and collation of information. It also doesn't explain why Phil needed to provide so much information, far more than was needed to make his point. Worm^TT(talk) 10:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The context would be in community scrutiny of the rationality of this ArbCom decision. Morwen (talk) 11:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    In which case, I would advise against the direct posting of that information. It would not be difficult to explain what information you have without posting the identifying information and allowing interested users to contact you for the actual links. For example, you could say something like, "In an interview with newspaper X, the user linked his full name with his wikipedia id, link available on request". As I say, I've yet to see where the majority of information, which goes far beyond full name and user name, has been provided to press sources or on Wikipedia and would be interested in being sent that information. Worm^TT(talk) 11:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Right. So: In an interview with Yahoo, the user linked his full name with his wikipedia id, link available on request (by email or whatevs). I do not think that is private information. I think the freeness with which he provided that information means that I should be able to name the user on Wikipedia while scrutinising this decision. I am not saying I should be allowed to mention or even allude to the other information that you mention at this. Morwen (talk) 11:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Tell you what, I'll email you. Worm^TT(talk) 11:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to me that even if the core of the motion is correct (I won't judge), its wording is quite unfortunate. In my opinion it encourages gaming the system by first releasing own personal data everywhere and then asking to punish someone for citing it off-wiki (and even not trying to avoid the Streisand effect - despite attempts to avoid it should be expected if a user really worries about his privacy and doesn't just use it as a weapon). Also, I think, the motion will help unfair editors to hide severe conflict of interests, which is surely not good for Wikipedia. The motion causes Chilling effect, which should be carefully avoided. The motion looks to me unbalanced and not accurate enough, sorry. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 11:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I supported these motions as I was disturbed by the actions that Sandifer took. What people do on a blog or site outside of Wikipedia is up to them and the site they use; but if what they do on that blog is in gross contravention of our behaviour guidelines and polices while they are members of our community, we need to make it clear they are not welcome here while they continue to do such things. They are, of course, still free to make statements on their blog: we - the Wikipedia community and the Arbitration Committee - have no authority over that. However, it would be inappropriate for them to remain a part of our community while they are violating the community standards that have been set up to encourage free, open and frank discussions. Nobody should fear that they will experience personal attacks, or that the people who disagrees with them will bring the grudge into their real lives. How much a person believes they are correct in a content dispute, indeed even if they are right, does not give them reason to do the internet equivalent of hitting them in the stomach. Argue the points - don't attack the person. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  
  • This sort of thing is fine, though? Morwen (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    

    When somebody is engaged in harassment, don't take their complaints of harassment too seriously. Jehochman ^Talk 12:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually. Linking to something someone has put on Wikipedia, and has left there for years, is absolutely alright, and has been forever; in fact, it's precisely how people comment on RFAs on a daily basis, or refer to past behaviours when discussing sanctions. Cla68's ridiculous assumption that people who go to the same wiki-meetup are automatically friends was completely discounted by the Arbitration Committee during the case; you notice how your actions were mentioned only peripherally in the case, there was no specific finding about you, and no sanctions. Risker (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, I wasn't aware of that gallery existing until [[User::Cla68]] (who apparently we are allowed to name by username now?) posted it. I agree it was ridiculous. I do not think it was alright in that context, though. I interpreted it as a warning that they had extensively researched me on the Internet and were prepared to collate information in precisely the same way that you are now complaining that Phil has done. Morwen (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well no. It's very easy to get from the picture of you on your talk page at London 3, to London 5. I really don't think that's stalking.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's also "very easy" to type usernames into a search engine. Anyway. That's not all of it. You're an Oversighter - have a look at the oversighted edits on the Evidence page (I would provide links but I can't obviously). Morwen (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • So you're saying, SilkTork, that people who edit here are not allowed to write commentary about Wikipedia in which they have gathered publicly available facts demonstrating (they feel) the corruption of another editor? That's a very strange position to take. What Phil published included facts that I found in a few minutes worth of Google searches. C was not hurt by the revelations because nothing was revealed. C picked up our outing policy, which is supposed to be a shield, and used it as a sword to get a content opponent banned. He wasn't concerned about the Streisand effect because he's been giving interviews to the media where he identifies himself and his username. You fools got played. Not that long ago C got blocked for outing R. The hypocrisy is surprising, even for Wikipedia. Would you please take a second look at this matter? Jehochman ^Talk 11:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually interviewed that user for a podcast a few years ago when they were running for ArbCom, and various personal details were mentioned openly there. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you email me the link, since apparently posting it here would be banned? My email address is morwen@morwen.net. Morwen (talk) 12:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • (edit conflict) "[Writing] commentary about Wikipedia in which they have gathered publicly available facts demonstrating (they feel) the corruption of another editor" is outing. Corruption that can only be demonstrated with such private evidence should be sent to 'an administrator or arbitrator' and not published on the internet. We didn't get played; we came down hard on an administrator who should have known better. AGK [•] 12:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it is not outing to repeat info that the subject themselves publicized by giving an interview. It is very wrong to call the repetition of freely-revealed public info "outing". Jehochman ^Talk 14:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course Wikipedia "got played" ...Sandifier coalesced sufficient information to violate outing (full name, location and employer), drew a line in the sand, and refused to simply edit the post when contacted by the committee, knowing full well the committee would pretty much have to at a minimum desysop. They obviously weren't using their wiki credentials to contribute to the encylopedia so it doesn't matter to them, and now they can use the desysop / banning as further evidence of how anti-trans Wikipedia is. NE Ent 12:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I highly recommend that the ArbCom listen to at least the first 60 seconds of this interview. He is *asked* "you don't mind your real name being known", confirms his first name, he says that's fine. And he confirms his country of residence. I've not listened to the rest yet. Morwen (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's the Chinese government, the US government, Wikipedia, Wikipedia critic sites, whatever... anything run by human beings and having some amount of power (even in a small pond) will inevitably resort to heavy-handed suppression techniques against anybody who gores the wrong ox, even if sanctimoniously supporting freedom of speech in other cases. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• To explain my oppose, we've had a few cases (and declined requests) over the past year that have dealt with the uneasy intersection of on-wiki and off-wiki behavior. The general applications of policy and guideline have always been that off-wiki conduct alone is generally not enough to provoke on-wiki sanctions. This creates a "loophole", as it were, that editors here have accused Wikipediocracy members of exploiting, and Phil's conduct falls into the same gamut. I find Phil's comments unnecessary, unhelpful, poorly reasoned, and somewhat amusing in its expectation of conspiracy everywhere; however I didn't believe it fell into the realm of activity that meant sanctions on-wiki, despite no clear pattern of problems as an editor or tool abuse. This issue, especially with regards to how those on the receiving end of the questionable treatment are trapped by the Streisand nature of wiki-action, is thorny; in particular, the fact that once something's on the internet it's impossible to stop people from reading or talking about it have made ArbCom's handling of various related issues uneven. There is always a balance to be struck between doing what policy tells us we should, and trying to deal with it in ways that save everyone time and effort wasted in drama. I don't see it particularly getting any better unless the community as a whole can hone the regs on harassment and outing to better address these issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you David for attempting to provide sanity. ArbCom's action creates the appearance that Phil was sanctioned for challenging ArbCom's authority. Risker wrote to him; he refused to comply with her chilling request; and he got banned. AGK has asserted that private info was revealed, when no such thing happened. Cla68 looks like he was head hunting Phil, and snookered ArbCom into doing his bidding. Any of you, please feel free to email me an explanation of what private info was revealed. I'm really not seeing it. Once the subject voluntarily places information in the public view, he can no longer claim outing. He might be able to claim harassment or stalking, but I'm not seeing either of those yet. Jehochman ^Talk 14:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • AGK's assertion that Phil revealed private information is casual defamation, giving the impression of trying to make a bad decision look better - David Gerard (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<peering in from the outside> just noting that sandifer's blog states of the disclosed info that it is "a fact he has studiously attempted to hide". So, wherever the info came from, and however open the subject had previously been, Sandifer knew that he didn't want this disclosed. And although (arguably) his employment by the military was a relevant COI (really? isn't the whole "jailers" bit simply an Ad hominem? Over 3 million people work for the DOD - he wasn't editing in that capacity, I presume.) the name and specific posting isn't at all.--Scott Mac 14:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, "a fact he has studiously attempted to hide", sounds like possible outing. However, I knew all about the military connection. Are you sure it wasn't on Cla68's userpage? That doesn't seem to be a big secret. If somebody has proof of actual outing, please email me with an explanation. Jehochman ^Talk 14:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the WP:OUTING policy is about intent (as evidenced by the irrelevance of the accuracy of the information). It is clear from the "This is a fact he has studiously attempted to hide" comment, that the intent was to out the editor.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you ask him. Since situations are imaginable in which he had made it public but later wanted to draw attention away from a conflict of interest, just ask Phil what he meant by "attempted to hide" if it isn't clear already. A guy like that isn't likely to say for no reason. Oh but of course he can't contribute here or appeal for a year.31.52.227.91 (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But he didn't just mention a military connection, did he? I doubt we'd be here if that's all he'd done - or even if he'd simply removed the irrelevant name and station on request. However, in any case, how relevant is it that an editor is one of 3,000,000 employees of the DOD? Play the ball not the man. This is hardly a strong "public interest defense" and certainly not enough justification for disclosing a name and post - when you believe that the person is "studiously attempting to hide" their identity.--Scott Mac 15:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your doubts are accurate Scott. My vote would have been the other way if he'd engaged us, talked about our concerns and either allayed those concerns with diffs or edited two sentences of test to lessen the problem. That's it. I would still vote to unban Phil the moment he edits that text. What's more, I've been passed some links which do throw new light on the matter, I'm looking into them too. Worm^TT(talk) 15:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, @Worm That Turned:, but the implied quid pro quo "redact your post and you'll be unbanned" is about as shocking and chilling as the posting of Cla's identity was, although in a different manner. On what policy do you base this? Where exactly does it determine that in order to be allowed to edit, one has to restrict his own off-wiki speech in manners approved by ArbCom? MLauba ^(Talk) 15:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems quite simple to me, if you Phil were to redact his post, he would be acknowledging the chilling effect it caused and seeking to improve the situation. I'm generally willing to see past what people have done wrong if they take steps to put it right. If this had happened on Wikipedia, an oversighter would have redacted the information and explained why it was an issue. If it was repeated, then that person would likely be blocked. If they acknowledge the issue and confirm they would not do it in the future, they would be unblocked. This is very similar. Worm^TT(talk) 15:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much in line with the legal threats policy, which seems appropriate here.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. This goes back to what I said further up about sending mixed signals. Blocking someone for WP:NLT violations on-wiki, or outing on-wiki, I have no issues with. Privately reconsidering the matter if Phil had redacted, that's OK. "Redact your private blog or else" though is another matter, and "you're banned but if you censor yourself on your own private blog" is way beyond crossing a line for which I don't believe ArbCom has a mandate. And @Worm That Turned:, I expect "you Phil" above to be a typo? MLauba ^(Talk) 16:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I intimidate other Wikipedians, with whom I'd in dispute, by issuing legal threats on my blog, that's OK? Daniel Brandt, who had his "hive mind" page outing various editors, could have remained an "editor in good standing," or even an admin, nevertheless? Really?--Scott Mac 17:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MLauba, nobody to my knowledge asked Phil to remove the blog post. I asked him to remove the personally identifying information, and only that information. While I don't agree with everything Phil wrote, I absolutely agree it was within his right to write that blog, and to express his personal opinions on the matter. It has long been this project's practice to take these sorts of things fairly seriously, when they're coming from clearly identifiable Wikipedians: in fact, our project's policy is informed by Phil's experience when he was the subject of malicious outing. The project's practice has also been that by redacting [only] the violating material and giving assurances that there will not be a repeat, the editor is eligible to return to the project. As I noted above, I would have preferred to have the ban discussion here onwiki where there could be a more community based review of how the existing policies applied, but Arbcom works by majority rule, and I think we would have wound up where we are now anyway. Risker (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redact != retract, @Risker:, and several of your colleagues here have stated that if he redacts they'd rescind the ban. That is the step too far for which you have no mandate. On the rest, I find it particularly rich that you'd bring up Phil's own experience with malicious outing in this context, because unless my memory fails me, I could have sworn that the user who did it to Phil the last time is not only an active administrator here but cheerleading for this decision a few lines up, right here under your nose. Which brings me back to the inconsistency with which all these things are handled. MLauba ^(Talk) 18:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, he doesn't have to redact or retract the blog. But we don't have to have administrators who deliberately post off-wiki the personal information of those with whom they have content disputes. If he'd posted that onwiki, we would probably have enacted the desysop within hours, rather than trying to work out the effects of the off-wiki post, and nothing you have said here persuades me that there is no Arbcom jurisdiction to act on multiple requests to examine the conduct of an administrator (while the target of that one little paragraph in Phil's blog complained, he wasn't the only one). I don't see that behaviour as compatible with administrator status ever. It seems that the community, after seeing what happened before, believes more or less the same thing; after all, it was the community that considerably strengthened the outing policy after those events (they were also long before I was an arbitrator, so I can take no credit or blame for Arbcom actions at that time). If Phil was actually serious about leaving Wikipedia forever (he's said it before), he would have turned in his admin bit and wouldn't have been making his "annual edit" to ensure that he kept it, despite the fact he'd been averaging 30 edits a year for the last 4 years (until he chose to comment on the Manning dispute). The determination to keep the admin bit whilst posting what's intended to be the personal information of someone with whom he was in dispute, in the middle of a blog that raised some entirely reasonable concerns about the project, is what moved me to support desysop. He shouldn't have access to deleted content, he shouldn't have the ability to block, and if he'd done it onwiki, we wouldn't be having this discussion. So, one has to wonder who's doing the gaming here. Risker (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Risker, you're talking up a strawman. I have not argued about the desysop, and if that were the only motion, I wouldn't have any issue with that. I'm well aware that the only capital we have to operate the bits resides in the trust, and it is very clear that the outing done on his blog is totally incompatible with that. I am also not arguing against the ban, except to point out that ArbCom hasn't been consistent in those situations in the past months on this issue - as a personal opinion, I find this kind of disclosures distasteful, regardless of who does it, and will concede that coming from someone who was on the receiving end of similar tactics most certainly doesn't make it any better. I don't even care for Phil at all - he pretty much disappeared from my awareness after the WP:FICT failed, and that was at the very beginning of my involvement with the site. What is an issue is the quid pro quo offered above by several arbitrators commenting here, that they will vote to rescind the ban if Phil removes the outing from his blog. Considering it privately is one thing. Offering it publicly though is crossing a bridge that you have no authority to cross. Despite this approach being perfectly fine on-wiki, it is just as chilling as what all the dox-loving outsiders do. What happens outside wiki may influence what happens inside, by precedent and practice. The other way around is corrupt, censorious and chilling. That is my issue. MLauba ^(Talk) 22:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Given Arbcom's previous reluctance to deal with other groups that utilize doxing and harassment from off-wiki as a means of creating a chilling effect, I have a hard time understanding why ArbCom drew a line in the sand here. The only real difference is that Phil was an administrator, but I don't feel that doxing and off-wiki harassment is less bad when non-admins do it. I am not defending Phil, because his behaviour is something I believe Wikipedia should take a very dim view of, but I also think the people complaining of a lack of consistency have the right of it. Resolute 14:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  This is basically my thought process as well. I have no problem with a zero-tolerance or near-zero-tolerance policy toward deliberate outing, even when it's done offsite, because outing and threats to one's livelihood have an immensely chilling effect on editors. But we have had cases in the quite recent past where outing just as blatant as this happened and even was publicized onwiki, and bans were not forthcoming (even the suppression of links to such outings has become bogged down in lack of clear arbcom mandate). Are we now to understand that the previous sense of "well, the outing itself is offsite, so we can't do anything about it" is gone, and arbcom will be acting on these cases in the future? If so, fine. If not, why act in this case but not others? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I find it a bit amusing that "sleuthing" is regarded as a bad thing... sounds like the standpoint of somebody who "would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddlesome kids!" *Dan T.* (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gotten away with what exactly? Being one of 3,000,0000 employees of the DOD, and thus (allegedly because of that) having an influenced POV. That hardly makes him the ghost of ghastly manor, Uncle Scooby. --Scott Mac 15:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you work for a small company, editing for your company's interest is forbdden, but if you work for a very large organization, it's quite okay? I don't get that argument. There is a colorable argument to be made that DoD employees ought to disclose that fact before intervening in the Chelsea Manning dispute. I think it is in bounds for Phil to point that out (though I may disagree with him). We don't authorize research into editor's employment. But we also don't regulate what people do on other sites. I think it's a big mistake for ArbCom to have banned somebody because of something they wrote elsewhere. What did Phil do with his Wikipedia account? Where's the diff or log entry showing him abusing his access? Jehochman ^Talk 15:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's several arguments there - most of which I haven't and won't take a view on. But it is a ridiculous notion that we treat employees of vast organisations - who are highly unlikely to have any involvement or stake in the vast majority of things their employer does - the same as the deputy manager who is one of the four staff of Joe's Soda Bar, and who is likely to have a personal stake in of its affairs, editing a related article is simply nonsense. Does that mean anyone employed by the US Federal Government would have to make a disclosure? Or perhaps any US taxpayer, since they are all shareholders in said organisation? I mean shouldn't we treat all shareholders alike? COI rules (as with all of wikipedia's guidelines) need common sense and perspective - not pushed to abstract consistency at the cost of absurdity. I'm not commenting on Cla's POV editing, or Sandifer's criticism of it, or arbcom's jurisdiction of off-wiki stuff, but the public interest defense of any disclosure is tendentious in the extreme.--Scott Mac 17:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I asked before, and I haven't seen anyone answer: how can it be possibly be considered "sleuthing", outing or doxing to publicly identify an editor who has already publicly identified himself, by full name and Wikipedia username, in the media? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not his name that was the issue, but identifying the specific place where he works, which is not something he has disclosed publicly anywhere that I can find on-wiki or on any off-wiki site.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That claim is, of course, entirely and trivially incorrect - David Gerard (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing incorrect about anything I said. Should you know of a case where his exact place of employment was disclosed on-wiki or off-wiki then I would like to see it, though obviously you should send it to me privately.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fucking lol. You're demanding I post proof that 2+2 isn't 5 in a discussion about the precise fact that posting offsite that it's 4 resulted in a ban and desysopping. A reasonably obvious Google search should do the job nicely - David Gerard (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem confused, I am asking for the proof that the exact place of work Sandifer revealed was already self-disclosed by the individual on-wiki or off-wiki. Several of you are saying Sandifer revealed nothing more than what was already self-disclosed and, while that is true for his name, it is not true, as far as I can tell, of the exact community where he lives and works.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it's in the first Google autocomplete.

• Though there's kind of a "chilling effect" on all related discussion that always sets in once any "outing / harassment / linking-to-badsites"-type issue comes up; people (myself included) end up hyperconcerned about repercussions of anything that can possibly be construed to fall in those categories, and end up going to contortions to avoid mentioning the name (or even gender) of the person being discussed; not without reason, since others may see fit to be attack dogs on the "Defenders of the Wiki" side and block/ban/censure anybody who makes the slightest slip along those lines, even if it goes beyond anything the ArbCom has actually decided. And then the trolls of all sides step in and take pleasure in taunting everybody with breaching experiments, until we have another drama-fest. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]