Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Third party advocation

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

(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)

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)

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)

Changes to arbitration clerk personnel

Original announcement

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

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3 closed

Original announcement

Motion regarding Manning naming dispute

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)

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

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

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,[1] despite numerous complaints from the community.[2] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

"We placed them on a board", yes. Once on the board, they can ban people, actually the small majority of one person can make the difference between banning and not banning, without community input. The only appeal is to the same board. How would you call that if not power? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, the policy strictly delimits the scope of ArbCom:

1. To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve;
2. To hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users;
3. To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools;
4. To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons;
5. To approve and remove access to (i) CheckUser and Oversight tools and (ii) mailing lists maintained by the Arbitration Committee.

If it goes beyond those limits which are set in policy voted upon by the community, the recourse is to not elect such Arbitrators or any new Arbitrator who does not view the policy as limiting the committee's powers. I would note that "serious conduct disputes" seems to be an area of concern -- matters of "trivial conduct issues" are clearly not granted by the community to be resolved by the committee. Collect (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Interpreting "sexuality, broadly construed" as a restriction

At the beginning of this year Arbcom accepted my appeal but left me with a restriction against "images relating to sexuality, broadly construed". Due to my past stressful experience of being harassed over a period of years, I have been retired as a Wikipedian for the last four months, and focused my volunteer time on Wikimedia Commons, however I have a long running interest in LGBT archives and am considering a project I may get involved with in 2014 that may help English Wikipedia content and could support the case for future funding of an academic placement of a Wikipedian in Residence. The current generic restriction would probably mean that I would have to give up on the idea, so hopefully the intent of "sexuality, broadly construed" can be clarified as intended to mean images with nudity or something similar, rather than remaining so broad as to include LGBT and historical LGBT images of any kind (for example my thousands of uploads of Gay Pride photographs from around the world).

Destroying my ability to contribute to the Wikimedia mission using my continued independent interests in LGBT archives, may have been an unintended consequence here, and I would appreciate some advice on how to get a clarification.

Hopefully this can happen in a respectful way, in the light of still considering myself retired from editing articles, rather than causing me unnecessary stress. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Fæ, speaking personally, I wouldn't see a problem with that. The correct place to ask for a clarification is at the amendments and clarifications page. Depending on the timing of when in 2014 you intend to get involved in this project, you may wish to wait until January when new arbitrators have been elected, or you may wish to ask now if you want clarification sooner. Carcharoth (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• I would say that the restriction would include the images you mention. I would say the restriction would include the topics covered in Category:Human sexuality and sub-cats. There may be divergent opinions. However, rather than go a roundabout route which may not anyway provide what you really require, it might be quicker and easier to directly make an appeal for the restriction (or part of it) to be lifted. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• I too would consider these images to be affected by the current restriction. However, restrictions can be loosened upon receipt of an amendment request. AGK [•] 17:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• "broadly construed" speaks for itself. It means anything that could reasonably thought to fall into this category. It means "go edit another topic altogether". It doesn't mean dance round the edges and hope it is acceptable. Asking that "broadly construed" be clarified largely misses the point. And the notion that any LGBT topic might not fall under sexuality "broadly construed" is simply a non-starter. It seams what you are asking is for the restriction to be lifted (perhaps with another substituted) rather than for a clarification. (No opinion on whether that's something arbcom wants to do.)--Scott Mac 18:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• for example my thousands of uploads of Gay Pride photographs from around the world. The editor in question has a track record of incredibly cavalier behavior around the privacy of others when it comes to their sexuality, and has also a poor record when it comes to uploading truly freely-licensed images (he was involved in "flickrwashing" with one of his older sockpuppet accounts). I'd urge against lifting this restriction so that he can work on a project to upload massive amounts of pictures of people at gay pride parades. In addition to licensing issues, there is also the question of subject consent, etc...Dan Murphy (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• It would probably help if Fæ could be specific about what the project entails, regardless of whether it might involve funding as a Wikipedian in residence. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Well, let's be honest here. Would you, "SB_Johnny", object to a project that involved Fae as a participant? Or not? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• That would depend on the project (hence the question). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 13:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The answer to that question could legitimately depend on what the project actually is. From comments above, I'd hazard a guess that more people would be happy to have Fæ working on a project involving no images of living people than would be happy to have him working on one that did. Indeed, I suspect that few people would be happy give a simple yes or no answer to your question about any topic-banned user without knowing details of the project. The very nature of topic bans means that while we (the community) are able to trust them in most topic areas we do not have faith in them across the board. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• The restriction, as it stands, would certainly include the images you mention. If you wish to put forward an amendment request, I'm sure the committee would listen. Worm^TT(talk) 15:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

One day left to nominate, Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013

There is just over 1 day left for candidates in the December 2013 Arbcom election to Nominate themselves. There are currently only 9 candidates running for 9 open seats, and while there are often last minute nominations, I wanted to remind everyone that time is running out to nominate yourself. Nominations close at 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday the 19th. Monty₈₄₅ 18:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned

Original announcement

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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

  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)

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

  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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
• I suggest the ArbCom look at our fine article about the Streisand effect. Morwen (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • • 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)
    • The user in question is playing games with you - David Gerard (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
      • I agree. You've been had, and in a very detrimental way. Keegan (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Given that Phil Sandifer was functionally retired from Wikipedia [3] 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@FT2: That wasn't a rhetorical question; I really don't think that claim holds at all, and it does make the rest of your statement much less robust - David Gerard (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

  • 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)
    • 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)
• 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)

• • 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)

    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)

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

    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)

    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)

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

• 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)

• 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)
  
  • This sort of thing is fine, though? Morwen (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
    

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

• • 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)

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)

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

• • • (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)
      • 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)
      • 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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)

<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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • Of course, COI rules need common sense and perspective - and therefore non-disclosure of the "vast" COI may be fine if a user just routinely introduces non-conflicting edits; but if he engages a "wiki-battle", pushing his agenda - then keeping his COI undisclosed is NOT OK in my opinion. He should either disclose his COI or calm down. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 00:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

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

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

it's in the first Google autocomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.179.219 (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

Arbitrary break

• I don't often comment on ArbCom decisions, but this one is so puzzlingly inconsistent and weird I feel compelled to comment. When I blocked Cla earlier this year some of you commented on the mailing list that it was a justified block and you supported it it you were worried about a Streisand effect. When I tried to make the committee take on the broader issue and provide some clarity many of you took a moment while rejecting the case to tell me how stupid it was and how it would only lead to an even worse Streisand effect. Later several of you privately talked with me about how unhappy you were about how you felt I was drawing attention to issues that an oversighter shouldn't be talking about at all and threatening to throw me off the oversight team because of it despite the fact that I had not violated any policies or ever misused the tool. So, you can imagine my surprise once it became clear to me exactly what the committee chose to do here. This is the most schizophrenic thing this schizophrenic incarnation of ArbCom has done yet. Some of you have been consistent as individuals but as a group you have been wildly inconsistent. I can't say it has been a pleasure working for this particular committee and I sincerely hope there are is a substantial turnover in the next election. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Given the large number of incumbents whose terms expire in December and won't be running again, I can guarantee that at least your wish for substantial turnover will be satisfied. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I know it's a tough job and you all put a lot of effort into trying to do the right thing. There have been some decisions I thought made perfect sense and dealt with matters the way the ought to be dealt with. But there have been other decisions that were poorly reasoned and now we see this decision which is completely out of left field and totally inconsistent with the committees previous actions regarding these matters. I can see the case for desysopping, maybe, but a full site ban with no opportunity to appeal or a full year, all for doing something that literally dozens of other users have done without being sanctioned. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

If an administrator or other editor as experienced as Phil has ever (1) publicized not only the name but the alleged employer and the specific geographical location of another editor, (2) knowing and even acknowledging in the post that the other editor did not wish these matters to be publicized, and (3) was the subject of a complaint that came to the attention of the Arbitration Committee, and (4) refused to remove any of the information after being advised that the other editor strongly objected, and instead (5) published the information again, and remained unsanctioned, then I am afraid I am not currently recollecting the incident. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The user in question has revealed his geographical location on Wikipedia, if not his place of employment at that location. Diff available upon request. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Let us assume that in some diff during his long editing career, the user revealed his geographical location (then or now). Phil admittedly was aware, nevertheless, that the user didn't want this sort of detail dug out and publicized in the context of arguing about a Wikipedia controversy. Let us assume that Phil believes in the best of faith that it was relevant to post that "Wikipedia editor C is affiliated with the US military," because that created some sort of COI vis-à-vis C's comments in the Manning case. (I think the COI allegation is exceedingly weak, but put that to the side.) That's not what Phil wrote. He wrote, in substance, "Wikipedia editor C is [full name] who works for the US military in [city] in [region] of [country]." Phil didn't further any substantive point he was making in his blog post by including that information, and neither he nor anyone else has explained the purpose or value of including it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it is apparent in Phil's original post that he was including that information because of the hypocrisy shown by C when C intimated a conflict of interest on the part of Morwen and David Gerard, while withholding his own potential conflict of interest. In a subsequent post on his blog, Phil wrote:

My reasoning for outing [C] was and is simple: it's in the public interest. The sixth largest website in the world is sanctioning trans allies and Chelsea Manning supporters for being "too involved" to work on the Chelsea Manning article, but is giving a pass to members of the US Military, who apparently have no conflict of interest. This is straightforwardly something that deserves to be talked about.

You may disagree with this assessment, but it's simply not true to say that he has not explained his reasoning for revealing the information. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not familiar with any details, but only looked at this "reasoning"... Phil tells: Hey, I disagree with something that is going on in Wikipedia and therefore outed user C to make this fair. No, whatever wrong is going on on-wiki can not justify another wrongdoing (and posting personal information to intentionally harm another person is certainly a serious wrongdoing). Arbcom was absolutely right by banning Phil in my opinion.My very best wishes (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That is why I mostly limited my criticism to the manner in which ArbCom went about this. Hassling people for their political views seems to be all the go these days, in the wider world.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Josiah, you're right. I read Phil's blog post and his reasoning (with which I agree) stood out.

The decision to treat people as if they were acting against the interests of Wikipedia because they personally know transpeople is very shocking. My faith in the Committee is no secret, and I think it's been amply justified over the years. This time, though, I don't know what to make of it. They got it wrong not once, but twice. --TS 05:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not think Phil was correct in his actions. The logic that would make one employee of three million a disclosure-worthy COI for an action the editor in question most likely had nothing to do with is highly questionable. That being said, a summary proceeding is highly ill-advised. Surely an experienced administrator is due more process than that, even if it is November? I can see a temporary desysop, Phil might use his bits for the ideology he expressed or something, and I can see that it might be justifiable (even though I would not agree with it) pending a full case. That being said, this whole thing is on shaky enough ground on outing and other policies, as has been pointed out above, that the committee should have waited to get voices from outside the hothouse before acting. We are, after all, a community, and some of the voices you chose not to hear might have swayed your decisions. You act for the community on some issues that cannot be properly handled in a community discussion. I do not see that anything would have been lost by setting this over for a full case, and much gained.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter why Phil did what he did. Posting personal information to intentionally harm another person is a serious wrongdoing. This is very simple. My very best wishes (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, what he did was reprehensible. Such actions are intended to and likely do chill the free debate which should be the hallmark of our community. That being said, I don't trust ArbCom enough to decide whether there's been enough from the next guy to ban him in Star Chamber. There is a school of thought whereby a secret proceeding is the appropriate way to handle an attempt to chill debate, I guess, but I don't happen to go down that road.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The desysopping proceeding was held in private because the committee does not like to give advance notice to an untrustworthy administrator that their tools are about to be removed; see the Level II section of this procedure. I suppose the ban motion was decided at the same time out of simplicity: Phil had retired and refused to answer our questions, so a public hearing for the second half of the motion was pointless. The important thing to remember is that we didn't vote in public or take community statements, but we did give Phil the opportunity to comply with policy – by removing the personal information that Cla hadn't himself previously published. Phil played games instead.

We investigated this matter quite diligently, and based on that I can say it's simply untrue that Cla had previously self-revealed the information Phil published. In the past, Cla had published similar information of a much broader nature; however, Phil sleuthed in order to uncover much more narrow information. It's akin to Cla having previously said "I live in New York City and work for the multinational Foo Inc." and then Phil saying "He lives at the top of Main Street and works as PR Director in Foo Inc." That Cla had previously given a little background about his real life does not excuse Phil uncovering very personal details about his real life, and Phil's actions grossly breached the community's expectations about treating other contributors with respect. AGK [•] 13:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Right, so I've been in correspondence with Phil about this. He tells me "You can tell them I said that both AGK and Risker's e-mails seemed to ask me to remove the entire discussion of Cla68."

I think the ArbCom should post the contents of both emails in full, so we can see for ourselves. Morwen (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

+1 - they wrote them, they can post them - David Gerard (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Phil posted my e-mail on his blog (and at the same time refused to consider removing the problematic information from his blog), so I think you can read it there. As for Risker's e-mail, it was a personal message not sent on behalf of the committee; she may therefore not wish to distribute it. More pertinently, it is clear in my mind that nobody asked him to "remove the entire discussion of Cla68"; that would be a ridiculous interpretation of my message. AGK [•] 12:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd encourage Risker to publish the email, having read it there's no way I could interpret it as removing the entire discussion, just the personal information. It is, however, totally her choice as AGK said, it was a personal message. Worm^TT(talk) 13:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I neither encourage nor discourage her. AGK [•] 13:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration stance on Wikipedia Weekly

This is pretty clearly an abuse of oversight powers: [4] So will the committee be demanding they redact WW#104 or also risk banning and desysopping? - David Gerard (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That is fairly concerning. This highlights once again why there should be a public log of who used the oversight tool; whoever performed this abuse is clearly going to hide behind a shield of anonymity. — Scott • talk 09:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It appears to have been AGK, since the next edit ("redact link") is his - David Gerard (talk) 09:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Mm, that's true. @AGK: your response please. I would however still like not to have to rely on inferences of that sort. — Scott • talk 10:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I suppressed revisions containing the blog link. It was tantamount to pointing people directly at C's real-life identity and town of residence, since the link pointed directly to the problematic page on Phil's blog and not to Phil's blog front page or something more harmless. The oversight tool is approved for use to "[Remove] non-public personal information". Redacting WW 104 (or not) has no bearing on whether to suppress the link I redacted, and in any case the suppression tool's ability (and the committee's ability, for that matter) to suppress audio recordings is much more limited. This is at best tangentially related to Phil's desysopping, and this discussion. AGK [•] 12:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom, please make your mind up whether posting C's name and town of residence (information that he has freely provided to the press and HAS posted to Wikipedia - look at Wikipedia:meetup/Military history ) is the problem, or whether it is the specific information about his employer. Morwen (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

You guys once again treated "forbidden information" like it's anthrax contaminating a building, needing some exaggerated security-theatre of suppressing every last atom of it, but in the end it's all as futile as King Canute holding back the tides, once some bit of information has gotten out on the Internet on sites not under Wikipedia's control. That's the basic futility of all BADSITES-style actions. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Suppressing a single page that clearly contains outing is not a BADSITES-like action. Suppressing all links to the website, no matter which page the link pointed to, would be. The difference is quite important. AGK [•] 13:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

"We suppressed the link because it revealed information that the user had himself already broadcast all over Wikipediocracy, but it did it meanly." - David Gerard (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I've obtained Phil's permission to host a copy of his post, with the contentious bits redacted. (If ArbCom would like to propose a redacting that would be fine by me, in any case I would run the wording by them privately.) I propose to just have the text of it, no links back to his site. The link on the WW page could then be reinstated, but pointing at that instead. How does that sound? Morwen (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Key point?

Reading through all these discussions and the related links, I have a strong feeling that I had understood what is the key point of misunderstanding between Phil and those arbitrators who banned him.

But first, let's recall, why our anti-outing poilicy is that harsh? It's in order to avoid a harm to the Wikipedia users outside Wikipedia that is caused by participating Wikipedia and to avoid (or at least minimize) influence of this possible harm on discussions within Wikipedia.

Let me quote from the discussion above: "posting personal information to intentionally harm another person is certainly a serious wrongdoing" - and I think everybody agrees this (probably including Phil). But the key poing is that Phil's outing was not aimed to harm [C] (at least from Phil's point of view, I think), but to make a context of the discussion more clear. Moreover, I suppose that Phil is sure that this outing definitely could not harm [C] because the published information is just one Google query away, and [C] has earlier disclosed it on several occasions without any signs of fear of any harm - and therefore Phil's actions could not cause harm in the sense of our anti-outing policy (at least I think that is Phil's reasoning).

As I see it, Phil's actions were aimed only to influence discussion within Wikipedia (mostly not related to [C]), and his addressee is not [C], but the arbitrators and the community.

So, by their nature, Phis's actions are not the actions that our anti-outing policy was created to suppress.

But formally, by their form, Phil's actions absolutely look like the actions that our anti-outing policy was created to suppress, and so the arbitrators felt that those actions should not be tolerated.

I don't discuss now which of the two positions is more correct. Currently I just would like to understand, if the key disagreemnt and/or misunderstanding really sits here or not.

What do you think? Thanks. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 12:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether Phil intended harm by outing C, but based on the tone and content of his blog post I actually think he did. AGK [•] 13:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

What sort of "harm" are you talking about here? Mirtar (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Harm as a concept is universally understood, so I do not think I have to define it here. Regards, AGK [•] 17:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Please let me rephrase my question: what kind of harm did you think could have occured, and what level of risk of this do you think existed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirtar (talk • contribs) 22:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Oversighters on board?

Are there any oversighters awake? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I've done what I can with revdel. For fuck's sake. Morwen (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

If you would like to remove this section, please do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Oversighters may want to pay attention to the my block log. Morwen (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I've flagged down an oversighter, and am seeing what I can do with an IP block. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

For everyone's information, per Wikipedia:Oversight: "If you are a user who has a request for suppression, please note that details should not be posted in public. Email [email protected] or see Wikipedia:Requests for oversight for other ways to request suppression." SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

yea, and it takes (idiots like me) forever to find that email address. So I'm parking it on my user page and in my email contact list for future ref. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I got a delightful response to my oversight email:

Dear SandyGeorgia, You've reached the Oversight team, not ArbCom. Note that you can always send a message to the oversight team via ... blah, blah, blah.

Something about the blind leading the blind ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Who sent that? They should have sent a message akin to "the information has already been oversighted following an earlier request". Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

it has NOT been oversighted YET. I'll let the person who sent me that email self-identify, as I've now notifed some arbs. HELLO !SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It has been oversighted, at least I can not see it (and I could not see it half an hour ago).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

it has not. this is ridiculous. I am heading out for the day, I have sent three emails to oversight and notified three arbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, all done now, and my apologies to the first oversighter who responded to my first email. It was my bad, as I mistakenly typed ArbCom instead of Oversight; the first misunderstanding was my fault, not the oversighters. But still, that should not have taken more than an hour ... I suspect I mangled it all, but ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• In followup....The edits involved were oversighted within less than 20 minutes; there may have been a cache clearing problem, and one of them got "jammed up" somehow or other which was fixed by a null edit. The easiest way to get oversight attention quickly is to go to User:Oversight and use "email this user", which goes directly to the right address. And "within one hour of notification" is the target for completion of any oversight request. (And as an aside, thank you Morwen for your prompt action to mitigate the situation, and SandyGeorgia for identifying the problem.) Risker (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Not a cache issue. I went to a different computer, not logged in to Wikipedia, and took a screenshot. But I definitely made a mess of the rest of this, which indicates some holes in the process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Might have been the MediaWiki cache; by the time I got your second email, it was resolved for me. Having said that, it is probably a good idea to publicise the correct address/easiest way for requesting oversight on the actual Wikipedia:Oversight page and its talk page, rather than making people hunt all over the project for it. Will try to work on that tonight. Risker (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've added prominent links to the relevant pages, to catch the eye of users in a hurry. See what you think. WJBscribe (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• MUCH better :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• I obviously can't speak for the whole team on this matter, but as the arbs all have the suppression tool as well it seems less risky for us to let them clean up messes in their front yard while the rest of us stick to the more low-profile work we are used to doing throughout the rest of the project. As we only serve at the pleasure of the committee we are understandably nervous about making the wrong move in a high-profile arena that is right on the commitee's doorstep. The last time these issues were here there was significant disagreement and acrimony on our notmally quiet and harmonious mailing list, so I think a lot of the team is still a little gunshy. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, the user has a fair bit of experience in people stalking him and trying to post his home town. Or perhaps it's the other way around. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence - David Gerard (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It is in fact usually the other way around. I blocked Cla for on-wiki linking to outing material earlier this year. So I certainly do see a certain ironic/schadenfreude aspects of this baffling decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Good gravy!

This discussion should really be shut down, because it's nearly impossible to resolve the issues without (accidentally or intentionally) running afoul of the rather complicated policies that are at issue. To paraphrase Mr. Gerard's opening comment: perhaps those who want to get into the weeds on this should do what "the banning arbitrators" did and go "hang out on Wikipediocracy". This isn't going to get resolved on this particular WP page, because it's against various policies to speak freely about the real issues at hand. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It's generally impossible to discuss the real issues at hand on WP, too many vested interests with admin buttons, hence the need for external review sites. Eric Corbett 23:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it rarely rises to the Monty-Python-esque level of obviously "not mentioning p-i-z-z-a around the c-h-i-l-d" that it has on this page over the last 24 hours. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

In my experience it very often rises to that level, but of course YMMV. Eric Corbett 23:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• "Good gravy!" — Essentially my reaction to seeing the ArbCom notice of Sandifer's desysop and ban (granted, mine was "Holy catfish!", but semantics aside, they're roughly the same). Interesting, because I do trust the arbitrators who've been elected to the committee. Very disappointing to see how things turned out. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

What does it mean?

I hope Wikipediocracy has some clout here, otherwise the decision should be reversed for the very reasons given above. 31.52.227.91 (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Recapitulation

In a long, threaded discussion like this, key points get swallowed up as they are followed by other posts and the conversation moves in another direction. So, I think it is worth a brief summary of what the actions I voted for the other day were and were not about. I haven't run this post by the rest of the Committee, so I speak here for myself alone, yet I dare to suggest that most if not all of my colleagues who supported the motions would agree with the following:

• The motions that criticized, desysopped, and banned Phil Sandifer were not based on the fact that he criticized the Arbitration Committee on his blog. Lots of people criticize the Arbitration Committee every day, both on and off Wikipedia.
• These actions were not based on Phil's views on any aspect of the Chelsea/Bradley Manning naming dispute or any related dispute.
• These actions were not based on Phil's disagreement with much of the outcome of the Manning case. Lots of people disagreed with aspects of the outcome of the case. I disagreed with parts of the outcome, and in fact, I think pretty much every single arbitrator voted against at least one part of the final decision.
• These actions were not based on the fact that Phil criticized a particular Wikipedia editor ("C") on his blog, with respect to that editor's statements during the Manning case.
• These actions were not based on Phil's posting that C is affiliated with the United States military. While I think that Phil's argument that C has a conflict of interest vis-à-vis Manning based on his military affiliation is a weak argument, I would not have supported any sanction based on this alone.
• These actions were not based solely on Phil's having posted C's full name. While I do not think this was a useful action or served any useful purpose, given that the name has been publicized elsewhere, if that were all that had been posted this would have been a much closer call for me.
• These actions were based in large part on Phil's having posted C's full name and the identity of his employer and the specific location (city, region, country) where he is located. Even assuming that Phil believed in good faith that he needed to identify C as connected with the US military to make his point, neither he nor anyone else has explained why specifying his full name and his specific geographic location was appropriate.
• Two arbitrators communicated with Phil, after he made his blog post and before the sanctions were voted, expressing concerns regarding Phil's violation of the "outing" policy. These arbitrators did not complain that Phil had made a blog post that criticized both the arbitrators as well as C (who is not an arbitrator and historically has not been the ArbCom's best friend, either). They did point out that posting "personal, non-public information about another contributor" is against Wikipedia policy.
• At no time, even to this day, has Phil suggested that he would be willing to take down any piece of the identifying information he posted about C, even the pieces (such as geographic location) that do not pertain to his underlying message (about Wikipedia's treatment of trans issues or about alleged conflict of interest) in any way.

I hope that this helps commenters on all sides keep the issues in perspective. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

So it was based solely on previously publicly available information, and the highly contentious context should not be considered a factor. Thank you. Mirtar (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

As a very minor and perhaps trivial point, "C" also pointed out (over there in that bad bad place) that he also didn't actually express any particular opinion about the Manning naming issue. FWIW, YMMV, etc.... but it does put things in further perspective. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

He's stated that on my talkpage as well. I inferred a position on the naming issue from what he did say, but perhaps should not have done so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you think the emails show that this line of reasoning was made sufficiently clear to Phil? Morwen (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I think all of the above should have been clear to Phil, yes; but if he states that he genuinely had a materially different understanding, I would be interested in that fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Philip Sandifer details in his latest blog post "Fuller Statement on my Wikipedia Banning" the points on which the arbitrators have misstated and misrepresented their claims about him, including in NYB's comment above. The post does not mention the name of the outed subject.

Instead, let's look at the facts. The arbitration committee attempted to intimidate me out of reporting critically on them. They've handed out the most draconian punishment in their arsenal according to a novel new reading of a policy, and have publicly lied about my conversations with them leading up to this ban, suggesting that I refused requests on their part that never existed. They have sided with a blatantly hypocritical user who has previously spoken favourably of the importance of transparency and accountability, and who has in the past done the exact same thing I'm banned for. And they have salted the earth on Wikipedia, forbidding all linking to the "Wikipedia Goes All-In on Transphobia" article - an article that, as noted, was widely linked to by serious-minded blogs and newssites and that formed the basis of an article in the Guardian.

Given all of this, an obvious question forms: If this isn't about punishing me for criticizing the arbitration committee and censoring that criticism on Wikipedia itself, what is it about?

- David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

David, as one of the three arbs that opposed the actions taken here, I've largely stayed out of this apart from the comments I made above (which still stand). There is a lot more I could say, but I want to allow the arbs who supported the action to say their bit, though some have yet to comment at all. But if we are talking about the same Guardian article (the one we discussed on your talk page), in what way did Phil's blog post form "the basis" of that article? IIRC, it was linked briefly at the end and was described as an "angry post", and the Guardian article was actually largely based on quotes and views from Trans Media Watch. Carcharoth (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same article? The one I thought Phil was talking about doesn't mention TMW and has a quote from me. Morwen (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian article I'm referring to is this one. Trans Media Watch are mentioned in the second paragraph, there is a quote from them further down, then a quote from you, and then one from Phil. For the record, we (ArbCom) were not contacted by Trans Media Watch or the journalist who wrote that Guardian article. As I said on David's talk page, it would have been nice to at least be able to correct the error that ArbCom decided the title of the Chelsea Manning page (we didn't, the editorial community did that). And talking of being contacted by media people, I said above that some arbs who supported the decision in relation to Phil had not commented here yet. At least one of those (Kirill) has been contacted by the Signpost and is quoted in the story in this week's issue. I wasn't contacted for that Signpost story (which is fair enough, as they can't contact all arbs for comment), but I do have some extra comments to make, which I will do over there on the talk page for that Signpost article. Carcharoth (talk) 13:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Sure. Firstly, his initial response to AGK's email (by way of a blog update), was this

"This would presumably be a reference to my revealing above that the user [C], who spent the arbitration case complaining that being trans or knowing trans people was excessive involvement, is in fact [name], who is employed by the US Military."

He doesn't seem here to be defending the inclusion of the more detailed geographic location that you are now focusing on.

More recently he has said "You can tell them I said that both AGK and Risker's e-mails seemed to ask me to remove the entire discussion of [C]."

One thing to remember is that you guys sent those e-mails you presumably did so in the context of having had a private discussion on arbcom-l, in which you would have been talking more about the specifics. [I'm wildly guessing here, I'll admit.] As such you would have known what you meant by "personal, non-public information". Phil was not privy to that, he just had to infer what you'd meant, and he did it apparently wrongly. There's simply no reason why that email couldn't have been way more specific.

I repeat my request for User:Risker's email to be placed on the record. Morwen (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• This section smacks of, "We're in hot water. Let's see if we can generate a plausible explanation for what we did," but maybe it's sincere. I hope so. There was no house-burning-down issue with Phil's blog post that needed an act-first-think-later response. It would have been preferable for ArbCom to temporarily suspend Phil's administrator access, and then ask him to explain why he posted personal details of C. "Phil, were you trying to intimidate C, because doing that is incompatible with being a Wikipedia Administrator, and even being a Wikipedia editor. We await your explanation." I think it was wrong to demand Phil to censor his own blog post. I understand how that happened because Risker is often heavy handed, and AGK can be as well. These two are probably the least suitable arbitrators for the task. It would have been preferable to have had a diplomat such as Carcharoth, or perhaps Newyorkbrad, write the email. It's never too late to do the right thing. May you could suspend the ban, retract the demand that Phil censor his comments, and ask whether Phil understood that posting the exact geographic details was kind of creepy. Was it really necessary to do that? Positioned that way, Phil might decide of his own accord to edit his blog post to make it less creepy and more convincing by omitting the geographic details. This would allow all parties concerned to save face. Jehochman ^Talk 12:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

We were not trying to censor Phil's blog post; and in fact we wrote to Phil along precisely the lines you say we should have. The message I sent to Phil asked him to explain whether he thought his blog post contravened the outing policy:

Dear Phil,

Please contact the Arbitration Committee to explain why you have
posted personal, non-public information about another contributor on
your personal blog. This blog post has direct ramifications on the
project, and may put you in gross violation of the project's norms and
policies.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Anthony (AGK)

Phil's responded to us that Cla's employer was relevant to an analysis of his conflict of interest in the Manning case. Even if this explanation was acceptable – given Cla's limited, previous self-disclosure – Phil's actions would still have constituted harassment. Moreover, Phil did not explain why Cla's address was relevant. Phil was asked by a second arbitrator (Risker) to explain himself. Risker's e-mail was more "diplomatic" than anybody else on the committee could have made it; I remember being impressed by it at the time. No satisfactory response was forthcoming. At that point, we proceeded to vote on the motion. I won't vote to suspend the ban or otherwise reduce the severity of our motions, and I gather there is not much appetite to do so among the rest of the arbitrators. AGK [•] 16:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yo. This '"C"' business is ridiculous. This isn't a trial, let alone one of somebody that can't be named in the press for legal reasons. Cla68's username is not forbidden information and there is no reason not to use it. Please don't encourage those who would try to create a cod-legal atmosphere in here by using a dramatic technique like that. — Scott • talk 14:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• C seems to have made it clear that they do not want their real name used on this website and I respect that right. If C has previously used their name and given other details such as place of employment and place of residence but now doesn't want that information public then we have to respect that, including offsite. The poorly labelled BADSITES issue effort was to ensure we honor and respect the right to privacy that our editors may wish, and my main concern was that if even if an editor may have previously identified themselves here or elsewhere, if they now didn't want that information revealed, then we must honor that request as this is the morally and ethically responsible thing to do. The only thing that makes this a one-step-further issue is that I have yet to see how Sandifer linked to his blog...I don't see any recent evidence he did in his userspace, or where he may have posted it elsewhere on this site for public consumption. I agree that the committee did the right thing, but I wish one of the members might explain to me and others where the blog was linked to from here. I was only in favor of no links, not penalties for offsite postings...and I am curious now is as to whether this type of penalty is going to start including others that post or are directly invloved in doxing efforts at other sites and blogs.--MONGO 16:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

  MONGO, your questions about the links to the blog post from Wikipedia itself are answered in a post I made on the talk page of the Signpost article about this. As far as I am aware, Phil himself did not link to the post from anywhere on Wikipedia - that is part of the reason I opposed the sanctions. I've also taken the liberty of making a minor spelling correction in your post.Carcharoth (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it is beneficial to some extent, and we can discuss the editor using "C" just as well as using the full username. AGK [•] 16:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

If the goal was to convince people to behave properly, this action was a spectacular failure. I don't think Phil understood the subtlety that Newyorkbrad pointed out at the start of this recapitulation. Had things been explained to Phil without any demands, you might have convinced him. I think that punishing an editor for strictly off-site activity is problematic, and should not be done hastily. An unintended consequence is to encourage battlemongers to inspect the Internet writings of their adversaries in hopes of finding something they can bring to ArbCom to request a ban. A better course would have been to email Phil, "We notice this post you wrote which could be considered online harassment because (what NYB said). This is not appropriate behavior for an administrator. Can you explain why you need to post all these personal details that the user does not now want to be public? Could you possibly make your point without going into so much detail? Keep in mind that wrongdoing by one party does not excuse wrongdoing by another. " The point of the email is to convince him, not raise tensions as AGK's letter did. I'd like to see Risker's letter. Jehochman ^Talk 16:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

@Carcharoth...thank you. It was therefore linked from here...perhaps oldish links or new ones, not sure. I'm not here to browbeat the committee...your "jobs" suck enough already. I just wanted a clarification. But I also suggest that anyone who edits here and uses an offsite forum or blog to post real life information about another editor, information said editor wishes to not be made public, then said poster runs the risk of being banned, as has happened to Phil. Our NPA policy already makes it pretty clear that linking to off-wiki harassment or revealing the real life identities our our editors against their wishes can lead to penalties...as shown at: Off-wiki attacks and External links.--MONGO 17:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

On one side we have the motions as making an example of Phil; on the other we have the motions in order to uphold policy. On one side, we wanted Phil to remove a single reference to C's real-life location; on the other, we wanted Phil to stop harassing C. This is a confusing array of arguments. I admit I lost track of the fundamental argument, though I tried to rebut what I understand that to be in my 16:08, 9 November 2013 comment, to which nobody has responded. Also, I am not sure how my e-mail raised tensions: Phil probably knew what he was doing when he wrote the blog post, and even if we assume my e-mail was confrontational (I don't see that myself), Risker's "softer" e-mail was equally ineffective. AGK [•] 17:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Compare:

Please contact the Arbitration Committee to explain why you have posted personal, non-public information about another contributor on your personal blog. This blog post has direct ramifications on the project, and may put you in gross violation of the project's norms and policies.

With:

Hi Phil, we have concerns about your blog post. Is it really necessary to give all the specific personal details about C? Could you not make the point about COI equally well by simply referring to the fact that he works for the US Military, without mentioning the specific place where he works? Though you may not have intended it, the excessive personal details could be construed as online harassment. As an administator, it is a problem if you appear to be harassing another contributor, even if that occurs off wiki. Could you help us resolve this matter?

I had my share of bad experiences with ArbCom, and hope to make things better. Jehochman ^Talk 17:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Jehochman, I'm responding down here to two of your recent posts (12:31 and 16:45). Despite your kind comments about me and Newyorkbrad it is unfair to compare arbitrators the way you are doing (I did a large part of the e-mail correspondence over the appeal of the block relating to the earlier outing incident this year, involving the same editor as here, and I was not entirely happy with how that went). The e-mail Risker sent was, in my view, fine. A copy of that e-mail was sent to the arbitration mailing list. What we have not seen is a copy of the reply Phil sent to Risker. I agree that AGK's initial e-mail was not as diplomatic as it could have been, I would have phrased it differently, but what's done is done. About Risker's e-mail, she will likely need to get permission from Phil (even if she chooses to post it, and she is free not to do so) as some of what was said, Phil might not want discussed publicly.

To go back to your earlier post, you said it would be "preferable for ArbCom to temporarily suspend Phil's administrator access". That might have been a better option. Technically, what was done here started out as a Level II desysop (AGK has already stated this above). There is the option there at the procedures page for a full case if requested. Whether this is still a Level II desysop or morphed into something else (where a full case is no longer possible or practical), I'm not sure. The addition of a ban to the desysop probably means the latter. I'm not happy that the ban vote was done off-wiki and I and a couple of others stated that the ban vote needed to be done on-wiki. Arguably enough objected to stop the vote that was in progress, but by that time the effects of having discussed this for so long were kicking in, we were reaching the point of diminishing returns, and the vote was concluded and published. Anyway, Phil has stated on his blog that he has appealed the decision to Jimmy Wales.

I also largely agree with Newyorkbrad's recapitulation above, though I strongly disagree on the whole issue of take-down requests, however phrased. The person with the standing to ask for something to be taken down is the person who wants the material taken down - our job is to enforce the norms of this project and community, not to ask people to alter their blogs to suit us or those complaining to us. Desysops and bans, yes. Public or formal take-down requests on someone else's behalf or as a carrot for an unban (as some arbs have stated above), no. Having said that, at the end of the day, a decision was taken and though I disagree with it, I have to accept it like everyone else. At some point, we need to move on from this and get back to other matters, which I now personally intend to do. Carcharoth (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

But the criteria for a Level II desysop is "(a) the account's behaviour is inconsistent with the level of trust required for its associated advanced permissions". Phil had done nothing in dispute with the account. Morwen (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad and Carcharoth, as some of the Arbitrators with the longest institutional memory, could you please refresh my memory? When in the past, besides Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin, has the Committee banned an editor by non-public motion? Additionally, could you please clarify if the "private hearings" clause of WP:ARBPOL was invoked in banning Phil, or if not, by which policy section Phil was banned? Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, such bannings do occur (and are needed) in the case of particularly odious editors (serious stalkers, etc) - David Gerard (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't hold up Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin as an example of anything - there were problems with that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• As a question to any sitting arb who endorsed the ban; would you consider my cooperation in this story to be, similarly, sanctionable WP:OUTING supported only by a public interest defense? Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• For the record: Phil's latest blog post contains the text of Risker's email. He has also added in the comments to that post the text of his reply to Risker. At no point in the correspondence which has been published so far is there a distinction drawn between C's name and location (which were matters of public record, revealed by C in the media and/or previously revealed here on Wikipedia) and his employer at said location (which might have required a bit of "sleuthing"). AGK's email refers to "personal, non-public information about another contributor", and Risker's refers to "personal information" [about C]. Neither of the emails specifies what part of the identifying information is considered "personal, non-public information". The suggestion, made here, that the Committee would have been satisfied with a partial redaction, does not appear to have been made in any communication with Phil. As Phil says in his blog:

  Nothing in either Anthony nor Risker's e-mail to me, after all, suggested that there was any sort of nuanced line to be drawn. Anthony talked about "personal, non-public information" broadly. Risker asked me to remove the entire section about the user. Only now, after the ban, has there been any suggestion that I could have made minor edits to the piece. Similarly, the complaint in #9 that I have never suggested that I'd be willing to take down some smaller portion of the claim is strange for the simple reason that absolutely nobody has ever asked me this.

  The emphasis now being placed on C's location appears to be a disingenuous, ex post facto attempt to justify a massive overreaction on the Committee's part. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• What over-reaction? What disingenuity? PS has admitted (bragged?) three times in three successive blogs that he outed/doxed C. "Regardless, yeah, I doxed a dude." (9 Nov); "My reasoning for outing C was and is simple: it's in the public interest." (6 Nov); "This is all extraordinary given that C ... is an employee of the XYZ working at ABC ... This is a fact he has studiously attempted to hide" (22 Oct). It seems to me that if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, and announces to the world "Hey folks, I am a duck", then it probably is a duck. Roger Davies ^talk 07:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• To be pedantic. When it looks, swims and quacks like a duck - I'll go with duck. But when said presumptive duck begins to talk - at that point my habitual duck-doubting reasserts itself.--Scott Mac 16:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• The over-reaction is the ban with a year before eligibility for appeal. Removing Phil's admin bit is arguably appropriate. Banning him and locking his user page like a common game-playing vandal is overkill. The disingenuity is the attempt to justify the harshness of the penalty by drawing distinctions after the fact which were never presented to Phil as options (e.g. redacting the precise location and occupation of C). Not to mention the underlying issue of how ArbCom deals with off-wiki criticism of its decisions. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• good call Phil's latest blog post is a great example of the exaggerated persecution syndrome that he suffers from and I pity anyone who reads it and takes what he says as gospel truth, instead of twisted manipulation of facts. He seems to really believe that all of this was laid at his door because of a few blog posts about Manning. I read the email from Risker - it was pretty gentle, but rather explicit - i.e. more or less 'posting personal information about another editor is in violation of community norms, please remove the personal info from your blog' - but Phil's response was to ignore and deflect, as he did with AGK's email - he never once, as far as I can tell, proposed any opening to redacting anything in his blog; in fact when the story first broke, he doubled down and re-mentioned Cla68's name, posting diffs, and was generally defensive and dug his heels in. I find it rather silly that someone of his tenure would be surprised by the reaction - ARBCOM isn't the supreme court, and it's not made up of professional constitutional lawyers who are going to double check the legal standing of every decision; it is made up of regular people who make judgement calls, even if those calls don't comply with rule 8 subsection c; I think IAR applies equally to ARBCOM actions, especially this one. Phil also points out in his latest blog that his point is not to change things on-wiki, but rather to publicize his views to an off-wiki audience - well, he's just been given another reason to keep doing that. It's no great loss to the project. His disconnect from reality is evident when he states: "The most powerful entity within the English language Wikipedia's organizational structure was threatening people and trying to intimidate them into censoring public criticism of them." - when as far as I can tell, no-one at ARBCOM ever asked Sandifer to censor any public criticism of ARBCOM or wikipedia; this whole thing is in his head. Losing the bit here was obvious, and a ban was not a stretch at all. In any case, those opposed to this action, rather than continuing the drama fest here, should open up an RFC at WP:AN and see what the broad community thinks.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Why would anyone need to take it as gospel truth? Everything is checkable pretty much. A lot of the arguments on here are simply ignored. Also,"exaggerated persecution syndrome" wasn't a great start to this post here. Mirtar (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I was just pointing that out b/c Phil is bragging about how many hits his blog has, and the commenters on his blog seem to believe that Phil is telling the truth, when in fact he's not. He was never asked, (again, as far as I know, based on the emails that have been made public) - to censor any part of his critique of arbcom or Arbcom's decision. He was only asked by Risker the following: "I hope that you might see your way clear to removing the personal information about [outed user] from your blog" - that's it - not "remove the entire section" or "stop being mean to ARBCOM" or "If you don't censor your whole post we will ban you" - rather, this is a serious issue, we're reaching out, we're asking you to do the right thing and remove the personal information. He didn't respond in a way that suggested there was any avenue for negotiation on removal of content, and they acted. Phil and his supporters are now trying backpedal and say "Aw, maybe I could have removed just the location, or just the job title, or just the ..." but it's CLASSIC - I have children, and this is how children behave - you tell them do X or there will be consequences. They ignore. Then consequences happen. And then they start saying "Wait, I was perfectly willing to..." or "Can't I just..." - whatever! He was given a chance, he didn't take it, and the hammer fell. The rest is post-hoc remorse and a bit of shock that arbcom actually has teeth and is willing to take swift action. Too bad. It's a good life lesson for Phil. Phil ends his post with "Instead, let's look at the facts. The arbitration committee attempted to intimidate me out of reporting critically on them." - there's no other way to describe that except as grade A bullshit. So, yes, if I said Phil appears to suffer from a persecution complex, that's me expressing my opinion of someone who we don't need in this community any more.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

So is his statement now that the ArbCom have told him using his blog to report in a journalistic fashion conflicts of interest on Wikipedia also grade A bullshit? Surely it's an entirely appropriate place? Mirtar (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think he is welcome to write anything he wants on his blog, but what he writes on his blog does have consequences here. Also, arbcom said no such thing - arbcom said "Please don't provide name, title, job location, specific employer" for a wikipedia editor - they didn't say "Don't critique our actions" or "Don't make accusations of COI". Even if part (or even all) of the information had been revealed, bit by bit, the act of collecting that information together into a dossier is forbidden, and in any case wasn't necessary to make his point - which was also rather ridiculous, by the way. Who cares if person X works for organization Y that has imprisoned Manning? The US government regularly engages in drone strikes, but someone working for the US government does not have a COI with editing the drone strike article. The accusation of COI is itself ridiculous.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

So nobody said to Phil "I don't think that what the Guardian described as an ‘angry blog post’ is what the community had in mind as an ‘appropriate forum’"? Would the Guardian’s opinion as to its emotional status even be relevant? Why would collecting together of scattered public information (usual, above board journalism) be forbidden? Is his point more ridiculous or serious than forbidding contributions to discussions on transgender on the grounds than an editor knows transgender people (i.e. people)? Even if the fact of working for the US military alone didn’t indicate a conflict of interest (and is that really established? – I might think differently of a contributor on drone strikes who actively working for the air force) might there not be one if it turned out, for example, that they were paid to contribute to Wikipedia and other places on their behalf? It seems very plausible that this might happen. I also wonder if some of the kind of comments being made here are appropriate or necessary, particularly when Phil can’t respond here.Mirtar (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Collecting together of scattered information from across the web in order to dox another editor is expressly forbidden. If you are a journalist, and not a member of wikipedia, go for it, but if you are a member of wikipedia, expect to be banned as a result for doxxing. It's really not that complex. Also, who exactly has been forbidden from discussing transgender issues because they know transgender people? That was never a finding, so you're misrepresenting and buying Sandifer's interpretation hook/line/sinker. You may be referring to Gerard, who was admin-tools-banned from transgender topics (which means he is welcome to discuss to his heart's content, just not use the mop), not because of who he knows, but because of his BEHAVIOR - the arbcom found that he misused his tools while involved, and they didn't feel confident that he would not do so again - you can read the finding of fact and the sanction, it's rather clearly laid out. Gerard was not prevented from discussing TG issues, and his sanction had nothing to do with the fact he knew TG people - this was spin added by Gerard post-facto. Finally, whether the doxxed editor is interested in paid editing or not is irrelevant here. Cla68 never even opined on the article title, you can check his contributions, he never once !voted in either move discussion as far as I can tell; he only participated in the arbcom case - so the case for "X works for Y, therefore X shouldn't !vote on article title for Y's prisoner" just falls apart - because he never !voted in the first place!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not that the facts of Cla's identity were already known isn't even the crux of the issue. From Sandifer's comments, it appears clear to me from the quotes in which he proclaimed his doxing that he *believed* he was outing Cla. Whether or not he actually was doesn't change the fact that it was an attempt to do so. That's why drug purchasers go to jail for buying baking soda from cops and you'll likely be found of guilty of attempted murder if you shoot a dead person but believe he or she is alive. Given that actual outing of a person and attempted outing of a person are both examples of inexcusable conduct for a wikipedia administrator, I find the extent to which Cla's identity was previously known to be completely irrelevant, so long as Sandifer gave indication that he believed he was outing Cla. Despite this, the arbitration committee gave Sandifer an opportunity to redact the information on Cla in question, but Sandifer is the one who chose not to avail himself of that opportunity. I don't see how the arbitration committee had any other choice here - how can they keep an administrator who places his ability to feud with his wikipedia enemies more than his ability to edit Wikipedia? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

So we banned a guy, without any sort of hearing, and without giving him any time to think it over, because he thought he was doxing somebody (even though he didn't actually do so). See thoughtcrime. This is not good. Jehochman ^Talk 01:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC) Attempting to commit an infraction can also be an infraction, even if the attempt fails. Jehochman ^Talk 03:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

See spin. It's not particularly good, perhaps, but neither is it particularly bad. Arbcom's had two bad choices: ignore and therefore sanctioning the doxing, or Streisand it (increasing Sandifier's hit count). They picked one. NE Ent 02:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, I don't see how it's relevant whether or not it actually outed Cla. Cla could post his address 15 times a day, but as long as Sandifer *believed* he was outing Cla -- and it's hard to argue otherwise since he boasted repeatedly on his blog about outing Cla -- it was inexcusable conduct. At this point, Sandifer should be free to present an affirmative defense, namely that he did not actually believe that he was outing Cla and had a good faith belief at the time that it was public information. To that end, I wish the arbitration panel had explicitly chosen an option that allowed him to raise that defense, for example, a de facto topic ban from everywhere on Wikipedia except for this discussion, but they did reach out to him and give him a chance to alter his behavior and he did not do so and given his behavior over the last two months, it's hard to fault ArbCom for not having infinite patience with him. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not accurate. Under the "Streisand" option, ArbCom could have followed many options less severe than the path they chose. They could have sanctioned Phil with something less severe than a ban with no opportunity to appeal for a year. And they could have done so in a more transparent and open manner, which might have allowed for more dialogue, instead of the current ossification of positions. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

There are more than two options. They could have said, "Doxing a fellow editor, or attempting to dox them, is conduct incompatible with being an administrator. Do you agree?" Just say that, and see how he responds. If the response is not good, open a case, take input and then decide what to do. If there were concerns about the publicity a case might bring, they could have asked C for his opinion. Was C consulted about the publicity issue? Jehochman ^Talk 03:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Apparently so: [5]. And if C indeed "felt that Arbcom should proceed, even knowing the potential for further repercussions", then what was the justification for keeping all the proceedings private? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I find it appalling that anyone is stepping up to the plate to defend such egregious, remorseless misconduct. Anyone who does this kind of thing needs to be banned and needs to stay banned until they are willing to respect our policies and act accordingly. We ban people all the time for things much less outrageous than this. Why, in any case, is anyone so eager to endure the presence of someone whose only purpose is to pursue some vindictive crusade? Won't this kind of thing just happen again and again? Everyking (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It takes some remarkably large, shiny, brass ones to make that kind of absolute statement, given that you spent five years under an interaction ban with Sandifer over your own personal campaign of on-wiki hounding. (A particularly interesting contrast is the benefit of the doubt that Sandifer extended you subsequent to your own desysopping.) Again and again indeed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

As interesting as it is to hear your perspective on past events, I think it would be more relevant to discuss how you feel about the matter at hand. Everyking (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Your extensive past history with the editor in question is relevant context to evaluating the relative (im)partiality of your recommendations on this matter; further, the nature of your own previous misconduct speaks to the level of consistency you apply in addressing these types of situations. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It would surely be best if Everyking stepped away from this discussion, for obvious reasons. Don't even reply here; find something else to do. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

An interesting development

I was looking at Phil's blog to review exactly what was posted and when, and I noticed something: the two posts identifying C have been edited. They no longer say "[User:C] is [full name], an employee of the US military working at [specific location] in [region] of [country]." They now merely say "[User:C] is [full name], an employee of the US military working in [country]." The specific location has been removed, leaving only information which C himself has revealed either on-wiki or in the media. I'm not sure when this change was made, but it appears to be more or less what Newyorkbrad and User:AGK suggest Phil should have done when contacted by ArbCom (though that's not at all clear from the actual emails). Does the change alter the views of any ArbCom members on the ban-without-chance-of-appeal? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

As a non-arbcom member, I'll share my (perhaps unwanted) opinion. When the DA offers you a plea, and you turn it down and go to trial, and then you end up being convicted, you can't whisper to the DA after the sentence is handed down to say "Um, I'd like to take that deal. I've had a change of heart" - it doesn't work that way. This was an egregious violation of our community norms, and Sandifer refused to do anything when asked DIRECTLY by members of ARBCOM, our highest body for enforcement of editor behavior. The idea of "Ah, if only I'd known I had to only edit the specific location + country all would have been fine" - that's a weak argument. Nothing in his blog hinged on any of the personal facts he revealed, and the whole thing would have worked fine had Sandifer simply stated "Cla68 is an employee of the US Military" - nothing else was needed - he was asked to remove personal information, and instead of saying "Hmm, I need to keep some of it, could I just remove some parts?" - he basically said "No." The change of heart is a day late and a dollar short. I think the fact that he redacted this information should work in his favor for the appeal in one year, but I would hope that nothing else changes. Remember - the crime Sandifer is being banned for is not not removing information when asked by Arbcom - it is doxxing. ARBCOM basically gave him a chance to avoid more serious sanctions by writing to him privately and asking him to redact. It's sort of like a thief, being told "Listen, I don't want to involve the cops, just bring back the stolen diamonds, we won't press charges" - when the thief doesn't bring them back, they aren't prosecuted for that- they are prosecuted for having stolen them in the first place.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Except that in this case the "diamond owner", the police, the DA and the "trial judges" are all the same people. That makes your analogies fall down a bit.

It's worth reiterating what Phil told Morwen earlier: "You can tell them I said that both AGK and Risker's e-mails seemed to ask me to remove the entire discussion of [C]." It would now seem that this was a misinterpretation on his part, but given that misinterpretation I think his initial response of "No" is at least understandable.

It's also worth noting that User:Worm_That_Turned said above, "I would still vote to unban Phil the moment he edits that text." It will be interesting to see whether the current edits suffice to meet that criterion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The analogies are just that, analogies, and are worth what you paid for them; I hope we don't need to spell out that wikipedia is not a court of law, but what I said is still relevant. I read Risker's email, and it didn't say "Remove the entire discussion of C" - it didn't say anything near that - instead she said "You're fully entitled to your opinion, and even though I disagree with some of the things you've said, I support your right to express yourself." (Thus, noting that she has no intention of censoring his views); followed by "I hope that you might see your way clear to removing the personal information about [outed user] from your blog." (note: Not "removing the section" but just "removing the personal information"). Phil has also posted his responses to these emails, and in both cases, they were defensive, instead of conciliatory, and rather aggressively worded, and importantly, I didn't see any questions or clarifications from Phil's side. Arbcom isn't obliged to engage in a 3 day conversation with Phil to negotiate the removal of material they find inappropriate. He blatantly and purposefully doxxed another user to pursue a personal vendetta, they asked once, he said nyet, and that was it. Its terribly tragic for Phil that he misunderstood, but, as far as we know, he never asked for clarification, so that he misunderstood Risker's email is his fault, not hers. The guy writes for a living, but somehow his reading comprehension skills failed him here? I sort of doubt it - he wanted to provoke a reaction, he purposefully goaded them into provoking a reaction, and then acted all surprised when the reaction was a bit harsher than he had hoped. In any case, it's just made him more of a martyr for Manning's cause, so he'll have plenty more to write about in the weeks to come. I think this whole thing will turn out just fine for everyone.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 08:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to note that yes, based on Phil's edits I'd be happy with suspending iss ban now with a couple of restrictions. I am only one arbitrator though, not a majority. Having said that, discussions are ongoing and I'm watching with interest to see if anything changes my position. Worm^TT(talk) 15:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• ArbCom have acted poorly, and should fix their errors. Jehochman ^Talk 13:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I am disappointed that you are repeating yourself without responding to my earlier comment:

We were not trying to censor Phil's blog post; and in fact we wrote to Phil along precisely the lines you say we should have. The message I sent to Phil asked him to explain whether he thought his blog post contravened the outing policy:

[snipped copy of an e-mail]

Phil's responded to us that Cla's employer was relevant to an analysis of his conflict of interest in the Manning case. Even if this explanation was acceptable – given Cla's limited, previous self-disclosure – Phil's actions would still have constituted harassment. Moreover, Phil did not explain why Cla's address was relevant. Phil was asked by a second arbitrator (Risker) to explain himself. Risker's e-mail was more "diplomatic" than anybody else on the committee could have made it; I remember being impressed by it at the time. No satisfactory response was forthcoming. At that point, we proceeded to vote on the motion. I won't vote to suspend the ban or otherwise reduce the severity of our motions, and I gather there is not much appetite to do so among the rest of the arbitrators.

To be clear, the question is this: given that Phil knowingly disclosed what is basically Cla's address, why was the sanction unwarranted? Policy is quite clear that if you out and harass another editor, you will be banned. Regards, AGK [•] 17:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

"basically" is a weasel word (similar to "potentially"), which in this case actually means "didn't". It is, however, the case that Cla68 "basically" (in the sense of "did") revealed his address in his editing and left it to stand for years - David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

"Basically posted his address" was shorthand for "posted his location in such a way that he could be readily identified", but you knew that. Cla did not reveal his address on-wiki, or at least not the address Phil was banned for posting. AGK [•] 20:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This claim is still false, despite repeating it - David Gerard (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually it is correct, despite what I suspect Phil has led you to believe. If you have evidence that the address was previously self-outed, send it to the list; otherwise, please stop. AGK [•] 22:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Phil hasn't "led" me to believe anything; I looked myself. Given your track record of weasel words, casual defamation and shooting before thinking in this case so far, I'm pretty sure if I did send you anything your first urge would be to try to find a reason to sanction me for having done so. What I did was look through Cla68's contribution history - David Gerard (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

David, I never revealed my current employer, current town of employment, or current community of residence on Wikipedia. The off-wiki links that provide that information were posted by people other than myself and were posted without my knowledge or permission. Were you one of the two people that Phil mentions in his blog that provided him with the links that enabled him to discover the information in question? Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You revealed your (then) community of residence on-wiki in September 2006. Diff available upon request. (I wasn't one of the people who provided Phil with links, but I found them very easily after reading his post.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I know about that diff. That's not where I currently live and that's not where Phil said that I live. Also, that diff didn't say where I work and who my employer was/is. So, I will repeat the question. David, were you one of the two people that Phil mentions in his blog that provided him with the links that enabled him to discover the information in question? Cla68 (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Just pointing out that disagreeing with AGK on the strength of the word "basically" is Wikilawyering in its lowest form. Remember, ArbCom is not a court of law. KonveyorBelt 21:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Quite so, KB. AGK [•] 22:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• If your intent is to harass or dox someone on Wikipedia, you getting banned as a result shouldn't come as any surprise, regardless if bits and pieces were posted at one point. It's obvious that Phil wrote that section of his blog as a way of creating a chilling effect on the Manning dispute by (admittedly) doxing opposition. I'm not convinced by anything he said that proves he needed to say it to begin with. He had ample opportunity to remove the information; Phil is a smart man, he knows exactly why ArbCom contacted him. Having said that, I find his retraction of the information weak as well, after he already stuck by his guns and tried to say it was of relevance to the dispute. I guess his location is not that relevant a couple days later now? I would have respected him more had he actually kept the information up and kept pretending like it did. It shouldn't change a thing about his ban; a lengthy time-out for acting like a child and posting the information is justified regardless if he modified it at this point. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

C was pretty active about doxing somebody else not so long ago. At the time I was pretty strongly advocating for C to get unblocked. I think we ought to avoid over-reacting to doxing. The over-reaction draws more attention. We need to think about how to respond. When somebody starts to act like Spiderman, shining all the spotlights on him and using the megaphone to yell at him is not really productive. "Phil, that was uncool. We're going to desysop you, and then ignore you until you grow up," would probably have been about right. Jehochman ^Talk 22:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and what happened? Cla was blocked indefinitely, from February until May until he successfully appealed his block. It was deservingly so for a few of his comments. We're here to gather knowledge, write an encyclopedia and collaborate on how to improve it. We're not in the business of intimidating each other until one side gives in on their opinion (especially by way of doxing them.) I guess we can see clearly in hindsight this could have been handled better, but given his response I doubt that. Moreover, there is one major difference in the incidents that you mention between Cla and Phil: Cla was a generic user while Phil was an administrator. As an administrator you are, at least in my opinion, more accountable for your own actions. Being an administrator makes you a "face" of Wikipedia and undoubtedly gives you a certain amount of pull in the community. Phil understood fully what he was doing and being an administrator and doxing is incompatible. Blocks aren't forever, neither are bans for that matter since they can be appealed. I hate people being made an example of but it was a good one to be set. If you dig your heels in like he did to make a point, then expect what happened. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 08:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

A note: as you say, Cla successfully appealed his block three months after it was imposed, even though the information he revealed in his doxing was never removed from the site on which he is a "global moderator". Phil is forbidden to appeal his block for a year, even though he has now removed the offending information. Why was Cla allowed to return with the doxing information still standing, while Phil is still forbidden even to appeal his ban? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I suppose if you're truly outraged he is still here, you can always ask the unblocking administrator or ask Arbitration Committee members for clarification. Either way, I'm not either. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not outraged that Cla is still here. I'm outraged that Phil is being held to a completely different standard by the same Arbitration Committee. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Could it be because the two sets of circumstances are very different?  Roger Davies ^talk 22:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

How so? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'm still confused about why all these people are arguing about the banning of an editor who has hardly made a constructive edit since 2011 [6]. What, exactly, are we losing here? Black Kite (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

In some ways it's Snowden versus the NSA. One says he's a whistleblower exposing a hidden conflict of interest, the other says he broke the organization's secrecy rules. One says the real world risk of harm created by the disclosure is minimal, the other says the harm is substantial. What's odd about the whole thing is that while Wikipedia follows the reporting practices of the general media in many cases, Wikipedia is far more likely to self-censor with respect to real names, home towns, and organizational affiliations. Most media readily prints someone's name, town, and organization, while rarely printing that person's phone number, email, or home address, drawing a sharp distinction between the two. Wikipedia's outing guidelines, in contrast, make little distinction between the former and the latter. Perhaps one of these days a journalist and a politician, both who have Wikipedia accounts, will make the news because the journo outed the politician's newsworthy on-wiki activities. The contrast of the media printing material at the same time Wikipedia's over sighting crew is suppressing it might be strong enough to provoke a rethink of the secrecy culture around here.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh please. As if the drama of minutae merits more than an "Oh well." I'm never going to get these 15 minutes back. --DHeyward (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The mindset that leads governments to crack down on dissidents and whistleblowers (seen with Snowden, Manning, etc., as well as in many cases in China, Russia, etc.) and the mindset of Wikipedia authorities in cracking down on "outing" has a certain similarity, even if the specifics (and the stakes involved) are vastly different. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Riiiight. One results in jail time or executions while the other results in not being able to edit a webpage. One is enforced by men with guns while the other is enforced by setting a bit in software. One is done as secretly as humanly possible while the other is done as openly as humanly possible. One is done by a bunch of faceless unelected functionaries while the other is done by a committee that the community elects. One applies to anyone and everyone in a particular country while the other applies only to those who choose to use a particular website. Other than being completely different and having almost no similarities, they are "similar". A bit melodramatic, wouldn't you say? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

If it weren't acknowledged that "the stakes involved" were "vastly different," yeah I'd say over-the-top. But "faceless unelected functionaries" would in fact be an accurate description of the Oversighters on Wikipedia, the shadow squad ArbCom appoints to enforce secrecy protection. When the Chinese government banned the NY Times website (the print paper was already banned) for reporting on the previously undisclosed assets and connections of the Chinese leadership, nobody was jailed, nobody was executed, and nobody but users of a particular website were affected, just as only those who choose to use a particular website were affected when material was suppressed on Wikipedia that never referred to anyone's address or other personal contact details but, God forbid, could allow someone to read an (intemperate) off-site opinion piece that identified a Mr So-and-so (correction, Mr "C") of such-and-such a city and such-and-such an organization (never mind the fact our Mr "C" was himself already busy pointing fingers at identified individuals and their off-wiki affiliations).

This summer I took issue with some Oversighting activity (that hadn't remained completely under wraps) over here and I was evidently just talking to the hand. A member of ArbCom, the only people Oversighters answer to, elsewhere accused me of bad faith when I complained about a particular oversight action, claiming that I was trying to find out what the suppressed material was. When I proved the charge false by pointing to the the multiple media outlets that had long since published the very same suppressed material word-for-word, there wasn't any apology for falsely accusing me or, more to the point, any indication that there would be a reconsideration of the apparent view that it is vile to express an interest in what is going on behind the curtain. I think ArbCom should desysop more frequently but I have to shake my head when one of the very few times they do so, it's not just for activity that has nothing to do with the use of admin tools ("no abuse of the tools" being the usual excuse trotted out for not desysopping an admin ordinary editors repeatedly complain about) but for activity that wasn't even on Wikipedia (how many "diffs" supported the case here?) and it is applied to protect the same concept, "facelessness," that you here associate with objectionable regimes. On the one hand, the message seems to be that transparency represents such an existential threat to the project that tugging at a mask invites the community's maximum penalty, but on the other hand, the crime of "outing" can't be all that serious if there's no enforcement against those who commit it anonymously because of a self-imposed rule against trying to smoke out anonymous Wikipedians committing off-wiki offences.

When the secrecy culture is combined with a very skeptical attitude towards corporate or national secrets as frequently as it is on Wikipedia, it feeds the external impression that Wikipedians are self-absorbed with respect to their ethics and even hypocritical.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

the only impression is that wikipedians are self-absorbed with themselves. A nobody was banned by board of nobodies from a site that thousands contribute to after much gnashing of teeth. Think of how ridiculous it sounds to say "Manning, Snowden and Sandifer" were victims of secrecy concerns of the powerful status quo. The only remaining question is the laughability factor. And without the ban we may never have the complete compendium of the Tardedverse. Really? --DHeyward (talk)

Motion proposed regarding activity levels for holders of both CU and OS tools

Original announcement

Please discuss this in the applicable section on the motions page. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Motion granting temporary local CheckUser permission to Arbitration Committee Election Scrutineers

Original announcement

1. As long as Scrutineers can differentiate between genuine users sharing the same IP address (eg. family members, Internet cafes).
2. Might the results be used elsewhere? eg. to actively identify socks, and ban such users?
3. Will the Scrutineers check ArbCom candidates to ensure they have been upfront about alternative accounts? --Iantresman (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Please read the instructions for scrutineers, which were drawn up by the co-ordinators selected based on community support by Jimmy Wales. The Arbitration Committee is not involved in determining their parameters. Speaking from my own observation, all four are experienced stewards who are very familiar with the appropriate use of checkuser data. Risker (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

sorry

I want to apologize to the individuals who serve on the committee. Regardless of how I feel about the collective group, you are all good people who give your time freely without compensation (other than the constant derogatory posts), and I do appreciate all you try to do. Agree or disagree, I do very much appreciate the time you take in attempts to offer a sense of management to this site. Thank you all for your efforts and hard work. I wish you all the very best in real life, and I'm sorry for the times I've been difficult. — ChedZILLA 11:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding my note of thanks. Your efforts are appreciated. TimidGuy (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Same here.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Likewise. Wifione ^Message 01:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I too am appreciative of the effort you (individually and collectively) contribute to the project. Thryduulf (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• I just read this and must say, thank you for taking the time to write it. The role is often known to be a "thankless job" and not one that is worth the pay but comments like this really do help and I, for one, certainly do appreciate them. Worm^TT(talk) 09:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh Christ yes. I'd rather wake up in an alley next to a dead policeman than serve on ArbCom. Thank God someone's willing to do it, since it's critically needed. All in all you do a decent job too, all things considered. "Thanks" doesn't begin to cover it. Herostratus (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. It can be a very unpleasant task, and I'm not willing to do it again. We do, though, because it's a high profile role, get thanks from various people, so it's far from a thankless task. There are thousands of folks who volunteer on Wikipedia, some of whom work in dark corners - sometimes all alone, who don't get the thanks they deserve. An example is User:Op47 who for the past two years has been clearing the backlog of split requests, sometimes encountering hostility and incivility from users who don't agree with his assessment of the split request. I'm only aware of him because he took over that task from me. There are load of others like him. It's the strength of this project that we do have dedicated volunteers who work not for thanks or fame, but simply because they understand what we are doing and want to help out where they can. What we all can do is when we do encounter people who quietly get on with improving Wikipedia, is to drop them a note of thanks or give them a barnstar. What would be really nice is if everyone who reads this, goes and thanks someone who is working backstage. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Off-wiki connections

I am aware of some of the arbcom findings with respect to connecting a Wikipedia editor with a person in real life, and have read WP:OUTING, which addresses connecting a real name with an editor.

The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be.

What I am not finding is whether it is OK to ask if an editor editing under a username on Wikipedia is the same person as an editor editing under that same name off Wikipedia. For example, Talk:Asperger syndrome has a {{recruiting}} tag because of posts at wrongplanet.net encouraging Wikipedians to add such-and-so to Wikipedia articles. Is it permitted to ask a Wikipedia editor if they are the same editor who posts off Wikipedia using the same name? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Because Sven's question below went entirely off, I will attempt a re-clarification. User Tweedledee at wrongplanet.net (no real name) is talking about inserting poorly sourced anecdote into an autism article. User Tweedledee (same name) appears on Wikipedia and does that. We revert (poorly sourced). User Tweedledee has a conversation on wrongplanet.net with User Tweedledum (no real name), discussing the Wikipedia article, and then Tweedledum appears on Wikipedia (using the same name) and does the same thing. Is it OK to ask the Tweedles on Wikipedia if they are the same Tweedledee and Tweedledum who post to wrongplanet.net? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's okay to ask. No, it's not outing to observe that the same Internet handle is being used on an off-site venue to recruit shills. Jehochman ^Talk 14:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Two disclaimers, to avoid having my words quoted at me at some later time. First, enforcement of the outing policy is an area where the specific circumstances of any single case are extremely important, so every answer given in general terms should be taken with a grain of salt. Second, these are just the opinions of this particular editor. That said, in general, asking whether the Wikipedia user using a pseudonym here is the same person who's using it (or a similar one) elsewhere is, in my opinion, entirely acceptable, provided a. there is a public interest in knowing it (example: if you wanted to expose a case of COI, that would be ok; if, on the other hand, you wanted to publicly embarrass an opponent, then that would be a violation of wp:harass), b. you strictly follow appropriate procedure (which means that, for instance, you just start a COIN thread) and c. the connection doesn't indirectly reveal the editor's real name.

Also, when you cannot connect two accounts on.wiki, because, for instance, it would reveal the other editor's name, you still have the choice of contacting in private a trusted administrator or, better, a functionary who may deal with the issue in question. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It is unfair that editors who are open about their identity, have "opposition research" dredged up against them, by anonymous editors who hide behind privacy rules. I know of at least one anonymous editor who edits a Wiki article about themsleves, and other editors with conflict of interest issues that can no be mentioned. This double standard is grossly unfair. --Iantresman (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned when you asked me about this, there is no double standard, there is a choice to make your identity known on-wiki or not. You apparently chose to use your real name. You have had a lot of time to reconsider that decision and do a rename or a clean start, but again you chose to stick with your real name. That you are unhappy with the results of those choices does not constitute a double standard. And even if it did, what would your proposed solution be? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that very few new editors realise the possible repercussions of using your real name. Any editor should have a right to be either anonymous or use their real name, and expect that same standards of privacy. --Iantresman (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Second question

This brings up a second, related question. Does the context of the outing matter? In my eyes, there's a huge difference between connecting an account to an identifiable person in order to further a dispute, as opposed to connecting an account to a real person in order to demonstrate abuse. If the WikiPR scandal broke in such a way that we were able to connect all of the accounts not to an organization, but to a specific individual operating the accounts, would we be justified in naming that individual?

While I consider them to be nice enough people, I view the WMF legal team as something of a communications black hole, where information, questions, and requests for clarification go in, but very little in the way of answers ever comes out. Therefore I don't really see sending such an issue to them as a feasible option. While I think that ArbCom had done a decent job at conducting private investigations thus far (I know of a few old ones involving child protection issues), I don't really think that most of the investigations that ArbCom conducts should be in ArbCom's jurisdiction. They should either be in the WMF's jurisdiction (when there are serious privacy or legal issues) or the community's jurisdiction (when there aren't). Therefore, I don't really see sending every case of "I think I've found a paid editor" to ArbCom is a workable idea. There are cases, be it in the situation SandyGeorgia describes above, or in the case I'm describing here, where identifying real people may happen in the course of stopping abuse, and where posting that information might be needed in order to stop that abuse.

Of course, it should go without saying that if the solution is as simple as "you can out people to prevent abuse", people will immediately start arguing over what constitutes abuse. We need something clearer than that. I'd very much like to hear the committee's thoughts on these matters. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Um, unrelated. I am not talking about "outing" (connecting a real name to a user name) at all. I am not talking about anything involving real names. I am talking about usernames. I will clarify above. Perhaps you will change the heading to start your own question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

In the original hypothetical, your actions would in my view be acceptable unless:

• You ask one editor so frequently that you coerce them into compliance or otherwise "badger" them.
• You asked one editor in the course of a content dispute with him or her. Imagine: SG, "I think your edits are wrong". Tweed, "No they aren't". Cue extended engage between SG and Tweedle. SG, "Oh, and are you the same person that has edited X website?" … Patrolling for recruited editing – as an administrator – is different from using sleuthing – as an editor – to win content disputes.
• The editor's real name was somehow connected to either handle in a way you hadn't originally detected, in which case you might be in danger of outing a real person.

In other words, yes, but proceed with caution. You should also consider the parameters set at the COI Noticeboard, which will be useful as guidance for discussion in other venues about COI. This is my view, not the view of the committee, but I hope it helps. AGK [•] 12:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no special dispensation for administrators to patrol. Any editor can patrol for abuse and help resolve it. Jehochman ^Talk 14:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought until now that Sandy was an administrator. I did not say there was any such special dispensation. AGK [•] 14:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, AGK; that answers my question in the specific, as well as covering the general bases. With writing that clear and comprehensive, you should be elected an arb :)

No, I am not an admin and never wanted to be one. Very early in my Wikicareer, I was on the receiving end of a nasty admin cabal, there was an arbcase, one was desysopped and left, I am on friendly terms today with those who are still here, and admin cabalism was curtailed for several years after that case. But it was enough to convince me it was a club I never wanted to join.

Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

We are going off-topic, but I currently do not feel any presence of any admin cabal (not to say one does not exist, I just have zero overlap), and I do not feel myself a club member in any sense. Recently elected admin, Ymblanter (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

That's strange, your sponsor should have contacted you by now and shown you the secret handshake. Next time I'm having a snifter of brandy and a cigar in the admin's lounge I'll mention it to the cabal. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Ymblanter, you're doing very well. Just keep repeating there is no cabal. Jehochman ^Talk 21:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

There Is No Cabal (TINK). We discussed this at the last cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that there is no cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that there is no cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the international cabal headquarters, and we the announcement that there is no cabal is shown at the start of every program on the Cabal Network. If that's not enough to convince people that there is no cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't watch TV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@Sven: Interestingly, during the initial big Wiki-PR blowup, I did publicly connect specific accounts run by Wiki-PR to specific individuals, and named them. For instance, User:Bioengineer+attorney is Jordan French. During the Phil case I asked if what I had done constituted bannable outing, but didn't really get a clear reply. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman Well, you haven't been banned. I suppose that, considering ArbCom's apparent unease at getting into bright line drawing, that's answer enough. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

ACE 2013

FYI ACE 2013's results are over. --Vituzzu (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to thank the community for giving me a chance for the second year in a row and I would like to congratulate the group that got elected. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)