Misplaced Pages

talk:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Workshop: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration | THF-DavidShankBone Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:50, 12 September 2007 editCool Hand Luke (talk | contribs)14,522 editsm →DavidShankBone advised to honor other editors' requests for anonymity: That strains credulity.← 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 
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)
:Comment - your premise of far greater evidence follows from this case having far less. That may be your opinion but it has not been established as a communitywide fact. Indeed this very page is an effort to conclusively establish (or deny) just that. In addition, you do not ''know'' there is a double standard here. There is no double standard if the ''process'' is the same. In such case with different outcomes, either the merits of the cases are different, the players have differing levels of competence (and resolve - it is no coincidence there is a full section trying to unoffensively articulate the level of DS's commitment), or a combination of both. ] (]) 15:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:But your point that this is just an online encyclopedia is a good one, not so just to become a martyr but to really take care of what really matters in your, my, DS's, and everyone else's life. ] (]) 15:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, THF, 80% of your edits aren't substantive, but are Twinkle reverts of vandalism, typo-fixing, format changes, etc. It did not take me much time to go through them. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 15:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

:You're done? ] '']'' 15:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
::I finished days ago. I just stopped raising arguments since I am only taking part in the ArbCom when THF does. I also think other editors are raising some of the issues I found perfectly well. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 15:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
=== Me, too ===
I will only take part in this ArbCom when THF takes part. I also note THF's strawman argument above, which boils down to "You either agree with me, or you prove I am right and there is an anti-right bias", achieved with "Comment and run" and endless introductions of other situations and editors tangential to the issue between me and THF. The strawman THF keeps introducing puts the Arbitrators on notice: if you find against me in any way, you have proven me right that there is a double standard. It is arguments like this that have often been the cause of other editors to charge him with bullying (diffs in evidence). Now I bid adieu. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 15:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

: If you noticed David, you mirrored my arguments above quite closely, yet did so in a way considerably more snarkily. I gave THF some unsolicited advice above, to state his opinion as such, with the unsaid implication to defend it rather than just repeatedly restate it. I now would like to give you some: please be more civil. Said snarkiness will not endear your arguments to the arbitrators. And I find it trying on my patience, and am sure others would find the same. ] (]) 18:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:: There's lots of snarkiness going on here, and I'm the only one pointing out when it is directed at me. Regardless, I stand by what I wrote. I have an independent mind and I have a right to speak it. I'm sorry it tries your patience, but I can't please everyone. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 18:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
::: And there's a lot of games being played with this ArbCom, and nobody is pointing them out but me, so perhaps when I see that the standards of behavior here, certainly not optimal on the THF side ("I'm retired" "I've been harassed off Misplaced Pages" "I'm trying to leave Misplaced Pages" "I'm withdrawing, I'm not withdrawing" what have you). It tries my patience to have bad faith assumed about me when I make a good faith motion; it tries my patience to have spin in titles that change the meanings of proposals; it tries my patience to raise an issue and be admonished for it, just because someone else raised it a different way. THF isn't the only one that can walk off this project - I'm a volunteer too. So far the main arguments against me are that I shadowed THF and didn't engage him properly over issues I had. So be it, I agree with both of those assessments. However, THF's behavior throughout his tenure on Misplaced Pages has been controversial, contentious and been an issue with many editors. So I'd appreciate a little more good faith. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 18:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::No the main arguement against you is that you repeatedly published private information in violation of ] and continued to harass THF with spurious claims of wrong doing causing him to waste his time defending himself (including this case). ] 01:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
:::: (full tranparency notice) I continued this discussion on DS's Talkpage. ] (]) 19:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

==I resent being called "THF's advocate" alone==
If my user name is too long to type, I accept "CHL" or "Luke", and you can even clarify "CHL, THF's advocate" since that's your fair POV, but I have edited long before THF has, and will continue long after he leaves. I am not defined by advocating reasonable COI rules on THF's behalf. I honestly believe that non-punitive COI rules will benefit Wikipeida. I am no SPA.

If I am chastised for supposedly snarky comments concluding that David has not yet accused Newyorkbrad of advocacy (which is not clear from context because Newyorkbrad's concise response seemed to be ignored), I'd prefer to be called by a proper name. ] '']'' 17:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:You presented his case and his evidence on his behalf, you've been called his relay, you communicate with him off-wiki over the ArbCom, and every argument you make supports his POV. THF asked about proposals, and Newyorkbrad responded about proposals. I asked about titles, and I have yet to have a response about titles. I'm sorry you feel resentment over my calling a spade a spade. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 17:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

::Is this so hard to understand? I have a name. I would not, for example, respond to one of your comments by calling you "THF's agitator" and I most certainly would not try to justify calling you by such a label ''instead of your name''. But I'll take your "apology" as a sign that you won't continue. ] '']'' 17:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:::I stand by the comment as I made it. Your upset is noted and there never were plans to replace your name with "THF's advocate"; however, if you continue to be the only one (ceaselessly) responding to a genuine question, I will, again, point out you're not a neutral party here. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I said myself you can call me "CHL, THF's advocate", but you should not replace my name with your invented title. Thanks. ] '']'' 17:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:See comment above. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 17:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
==DavidShankBone advised to honor other editors' requests for anonymity==
Quoting from this section on the main page:
<blockquote>" but was apparently written without contemplating the case where the editor is responsible for the release of his own personal information." Thats just not true! Heres the section of harass on privacy violations for you.

Posting of personal information

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

:::I've bolded a section for you. ] 12:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)</blockquote>
Question: If the <s>policy</s> guideline Hypno quotes above from ] is exists "because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in 'the real world' or other media" then how is it applicable here? THF already thinks and writes in "the real world" and other media. This was an original point I had about this issue: these policies were meant to protect relatively anonymous people, say the NYPD police officer who contributes something unflattering about ], his boss. Otherwise, this guy is an ordinary Joe who does his job and is in no way exposed to the media's spotlights for his views. However, if a person writes articles and goes on national and international television saying the same things he writes here on Misplaced Pages; and if that person is putting forth himself as an expert; and if that person is citing to his own work, then how is this policy applicable in this case? THF is not an anonymous person whose opinions put him at risk in the real world or in other media; indeed, it is his job to assert his opinions in just those forums. So if the stated reason for this policy--this perceived harm and risk of exposure--does not exist, how does it apply here? I think this question needs to be answered, or else the policy's reasoning for existence makes little sense. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 13:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

:Simple MM.com targetted THF for his editing of wikipedia, you david helped them by repeatedly posting links to that site on AN/I. ] 17:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
::That completely ignores the question. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 17:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
:If you want to change policy you go to the talkpage and try and change it there. The current policy says it applies to everyone, not just wikipedians but non-wikipedians as well. '''There are no exceptions mentioned in the policy'''. If you (and those that support you)thought this was wrong you should have done it through the proper channels.] 17:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
::The '''guideline''' states a reason for its existence, and that reason doesn't apply here. Plain and simple. You want to follow the letter of the '''guideline''' but not address its reason and the inapplicability of that reason. Perhaps you should focus your answer by starting "Even though THF is a public figure who states the same opinions on national television that he states here, his Misplaced Pages editing makes him the target of unjustified and uninvited harm more than those outlets because..." --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 17:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
:"Misplaced Pages editing makes him the target of unjustified and uninvited harm more than those outlets because..." because you and MM.com make it so. Just because he political views (the reason he is here) does not mean the protections that apply to all wikipedians and non-wikipedians fail to apply to him. Posting links opens him up to '''MORE''' harassment especially when it is sponcered by a major media personality. Strangely he did not get the threatning phonecalls while he was at CSPAN. Many people on wikipedia seem to think that if a person is notable they have less rights on wikipedia, they don't, if they do find me the policy or guideline that says they do.] 19:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
::I haven't seen anything convincing that off-wiki harassment took place, or that it was a result of anything on WP. THF writes controversial material in magazines and on web sites. Is there any evidence that it (the off-wiki harassment) is a result of the Moore web site? If not, then it may be as a result of his writings in The American or on the AEI web site. It only takes one loony to create a whole bunch of havoc, and in the absence of evidence, we can't even be sure that we're not just talking about harassment by a single individual. To lay it at David's doorstep doesn't seem appropriate when you consider the lack of evidence. ] 19:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Strange that after MM.com posted his picture and username he got loads of abuseive emails, looks like we can work out who the "one loony" is. And as pointed out time and again WP:HARASS says nothing about not applying to people who "writes controversial material in magazines and on web sites". ] 05:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
*This is a good example of Hypno adds very little to discussions. He is not interested in trying to build consensus or work through issues, but maintains he is right and damn every one else. He flings around accusations and conjecture, which are unhelpful to the conversation and can not be proved. If Wikidea is going to be a part of this Arbitration, then so should Hypno, because here is an editor that neither side agrees helps anything. He is much of the reason why these conversations get out of hand. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 20:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
:"build consensus or work through issues" Issues involving wp:harasss should be worked through on its talk page. If you think someone has a CoI you take it to the CoI notice board. These are things you did not do DSB! It is you who have pushed your unique interpitation of the english language, and edit warred to keep it in place. ] 05:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

::I don't understand the accusation in above statement, Hypnosadist, but it looks uncivil to me. Please keep ].

::Ossified, one crucial point: THF was deluged with insulting and threatening email and phone calls in the wake of the mm.com posting. It's a little strange that you're a skeptic on this point. Do you also doubt that the vandalism to his user page was connected to the posting? Five different IPs spontaneously decided to screw with THF's user page in the course of an hour on August 23 before it was locked? I suppose that a months old ''WSJ'' editorial prompted one user to add, "I think my employer 'Vioxx' tells me to edit pages that make them look bad." That strains credulity. It's furthermore reasonable to assume that some mm.com visitors went to his linked home page at AEI, sent him email there, and maybe decided to have some fun with their cell phones.

::You're perhaps right that no Wikipedian (let alone David) had anything to do with it and that we should not have responded to it in any way, but off-site harassment ''did'' occur. ] '']'' 05:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

==Bye!==
I've finished wasting my time with this "process", my point of view is clear, ] is clear. I'm not going to stick around to be insulted by DSB and Ossified. I'm removing this Arb from my watchlist so i can do some work on wikipedia. ] 05:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:39, 29 October 2007

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.