| Revision as of 15:09, 7 September 2007 editEvidence storage (talk | contribs)121 edits →Withdrawing again: new section← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 03:39, 29 October 2007 edit undoNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,481 edits courtesy blanked, by request; text available in page history |
| (29 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{| class="messagebox" |
|
== Editor identity and self-disclosure == |
|
|
|
| This page has been ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|} |
|
Part of this case reflects an unresolved dilemma from ] in which ] had disclosed his real life identity onsite, then attempted to recover his privacy afterward. During that case I requested the Committee make a ruling on the principle and I repeat that request now. |
|
|
|
|
|
Such disclosures have played an important role in cracking some of the tougher investigations. For instance: |
|
|
*]: shortly after creating the original account, this editor disclosed his real name as Allen Williamson. 1 1/2 years (and many disruptions) later he mocked up a PDF file to resemble a scholarly journal and tried to circumvent ], ], and ] by citing himself - also listing his real name as the author. That connection played a significant role in the community's decision to siteban him. |
|
|
|
|
|
*]: self-identified as Jonathan Barber, later indef blocked and evaded the ban as ]. One of the factors that led to BooyakaDell's identification as a sockpuppet was a post in which BooyakaDell cited a source as Jonathan Barber's work although the original article had no byline. |
|
|
|
|
|
I hope the Committee can formulate some principle that would allow good faith editors to recover privacy without excluding key evidence in long term disruption investigations. Every version I've considered boils down to ] v. ] - which leads me to conclude that the lesser of two evils is to continue permitting these investigations at the cost of some discomfort to the adults who later regret the disclosure. The right to vanish depends upon the dedication of the individual who exercises it: an editor who returns to familiar topics and reenters conflicts can expect that sooner or later enough evidence will accumulate to reestablish their identity beyond reasonable doubt. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reprinting a statement made on 26 August == |
|
|
|
|
|
There has been a lot of criticism and failure to AGF in the workshop and on the evidence page about my supposed inconsistencies regarding the use of my real name, especially with respect to Jance. All of this was explained in an apology I left on the VPP board on 26 August, which I reprint here, since my merely linking to it in my evidence page seems to be being ignored. ] 14:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== THF === |
|
|
|
|
|
Per ], I have not edit-warred on this, but I'm asking for the end of hostilities and edit-warring on a remarkably silly issue, and have one apology and one request, which I split into separate sections. ] 15:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
====1. On the question of ]==== |
|
|
Over the last six months, I have been subjected to an extraordinary amount of harassment because I sought to comply with ] and disclosed my identity. In an effort to reduce the harassment, I made a username change, which I thought was a good compromise: long-time editors generally inclined to behave themselves knew who I was, trolls wouldn't be able to immediately pick me out. Unfortunately, due to a number of unenforced violations of ] and ], this has had a counterproductive effect, as efforts to politely ask people not to gratuitously throw my real name around merely encouraged canvassing for systematic harassment. I strongly suspect that much of the combat over this was a ] for other Misplaced Pages controversies that had nothing to with me, but that some editors were seizing upon this dispute to create a precedent for attacking a more popular editor. So I'm just not going to ask any more, and would encourage people to not fight about it, and instead focus on the production of the encyclopedia. |
|
|
|
|
|
I have to suspect that Misplaced Pages would not have treated me this way if I were left-wing, rather than right-wing. |
|
|
|
|
|
Except this is more than a suspicion: it's a demonstrable fact. In February, I complained that the ] had retained two attorneys to act as "Civil Justice Misplaced Pages editors", and was systematically subverting Misplaced Pages by completely rewriting every article in my field, legal reform, to reflect solely left-wing views, making literally thousands of POV-pushing and original-research edits that violated Misplaced Pages policy even without the ] violations. But when I linked to , I was immediately threatened with an indefinite block, administrators debated whether I should even be given the chance to apologize, and was sternly warned never to do it again--even though the same editor previously edited under her real name before starting a new account with a new username, but no record of her previous account's edit history. No one even suggested that I was not in the wrong, and I abjectly apologized. |
|
|
|
|
|
I apologize to those who were offended by my invocation of ] in what were literally identical circumstances. I am an attorney by training, and my mind thinks in terms of precedent, and this was an obvious application of precedent to facts precisely on point. It should have occurred to me sooner that the problem was with the original administrative decision in the first case to demand an apology from me and forbid me from repeating the evidence of COI. |
|
|
|
|
|
I want to thank those who came to my defense, and I apologize to them if they are frustrated by my concession here after they spent so much effort on the issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
I apologize to Misplaced Pages to the extent that my request for straightforward policies to be enforced as they had been previously enforced was disruptive. For the reasons stated above, these requests were in good faith. |
|
|
|
|
|
I note that this incident raises three issues for discussion: |
|
|
* The need to modify ]. |
|
|
* Whether Misplaced Pages has a bias in enforcement of its blocking policies. |
|
|
* Whether Misplaced Pages should be permitting any anonymous editing of the encyclopedia. ] 15:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====2. On the question of ]==== |
|
|
I would like to repeat again that, over the course of 7000 edits in over 2500 pages at Misplaced Pages, I have consistently tried to comply in good faith with the ] guideline, seeking guidance from admins with legal training. I would again like to ask editors to comply with ], and comment on edits, not editors: for all the complaining about me, no one has identified a single instance of a bad-faith mainspace edit. Compare and contrast SPA ], which has made precisely one non-promotional edit in the course of its Misplaced Pages career without anyone saying boo or nominating its articles for AFDs. |
|
|
|
|
|
I again ask that COI guidelines be enforced neutrally. Chip Berlet and William Connolley are permitted to edit articles in their field, even though they have very strong opinions, and even though they are attacked by trolls on- and off-wiki for the appearance of COI. But when they are attacked and harassed by trolls on-wiki, the trolls are blocked. In my case, however, not only are the trolls not blocked, but their demands are taken seriously: there are editors who are demanding that I entirely avoid not just articles in my field of expertise, but any controversial articles. I'd like not to have to fight the same battles over and over, and not have to wade through mud on such simple basic tasks as participation on the ] cleanup. Can we get a definitive and internally consistent ruling: are Chip, William, and I permitted to edit, and if so, under what constraints? |
|
|
|
|
|
I note that an overexpansive COI ruling, while simultaneously permitting anonymous edits, is only going to cause more conflicts of interest, by making it perfectly clear that different rules apply for anonymous editors and non-anonymous editors. There is also discussion at ], where I demonstrate that there is no reasonable interpretation of the COI guideline that suggests I should be prohibited from editing that article. ] 15:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Archive of withdrawn proposals== |
|
|
===No use of sock puppets during arbitration=== |
|
|
1) I make a motion that all involved parties edit under the User name that is named during arbitration proceedings, and the use of sock puppets barred. |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:''' |
|
|
::I see no basis for this motion. (other than to rattle his chain) ] 01:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Comment by parties:''' |
|
|
:: Motioned. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 00:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC) I feel the issue is one of good faith. I see no reason for THF to use a sock puppet during arbitration; it also may confuse other parties who comment as to who is who when there is a sock puppet in use. The primary parties should edit as the primary parties, and there is little reason--if any--for them not to do so. It makes it a lot easier for everyone involved to follow who is saying what. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 00:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Comment by others:''' |
|
|
::I believe this is fully understood, and editors have been banned in the past for using abusive sockpuppets to edit arbitration pages. A separate motion should not be required. ] 00:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The sockpuppet in question, THF's {{user|Evidence storage}}, has not been used abusively as far as I can tell. ] ] 00:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Now that I know the context, I agree with Fred's comment above. ] 02:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Knock it off, David. He's being open about who the account belongs to and not trying to hide anything or get around any WP rules with it. This motion borders on harrassment. ] 22:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Withdrawing again == |
|
|
|
|
|
The email I was waiting for arrived, and I'm going back to real-life writing. The fact that I had a moment to comment on some claims should not be taken as a concession of the other points that I did not have time to comment on. |
|
|
|
|
|
As I said before, this arbitration reflects a double-standard, and I don't have time to treat it as a full-blown legal proceeding given that there has been no effort to cabin the proceedings and the harassing allegations. A fair defense, given the allegations made, would require me to put 7000 edits in context so that admins could have a fair evaluation of the totality of my contribution to Misplaced Pages. Given that neither Cberlet nor WMC nor other editors affiliated with left-wing organizations have been required to submit to such scrutiny, despite far greater evidence of POV-pushing and self-promotion, I object to the double-standard. THF 15:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC) |
|