DennyColt's "Wikipedia talk:Attack site" up for arbitration, DennyColt's "Wikipedia talk:Attack site" up for arbitrat Options

[Somey]

But they didn't finish their sentence!

If you're feeling strong negative emotions towards Wikipedia, an article or a user, you're taking things too seriously, and it's definitely time to back off.

"...And leave us alone, so we can POV-push, libel you, and put up the Biggest Attractive Nuisance On Earth to let anyone with internet access insert lies about you for the whole world to see, at any time of the day or night."

That's better.

Anyway, what's Denny smoking? Does he really think Wikipedia is going to guarantee anyone's privacy? It's the biggest threat to personal privacy in the world, by far. If anything, it guarantees that you won't have any personal privacy.

At least the global intelligence community and law enforcement agencies are under various forms of professional strictures to avoid leaking of unsubstantiated personal and/or private information. Wikipedia does it as a matter of course.

[Somey]

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ril/068532.html

Every single link from Wikipedia back to hate sites that out editors if left on-Wikipedia increases exposure and damage to the Wikipedians in question. Why do we need a link that leads in 1-2 clicks to 'outed' personal information to keep tabs on anything? That is what bookmarks are for.

Every single article on Wikipedia edited by hateful users that exposes personal details about private individuals if left on-Wikipedia increases exposure and damage to the individuals in question. Why do we need an article that leads in 1-2 clicks to private personal information to keep tabs on everyone? That is what spy agencies are for.

There is no difference between posting on Wikipedia "Mgm is actually Caroline Smith from Yorkshire, England, employed the Guardian Newspaper" or "Mgm is actually Bob Jones from Las Vegas, Nevada, employed by the United States Postal service" and linking back to a Website that says the exact same thing. Both are equally damaging on-wiki to Mgm.

There is no difference between posting on Wikipedia "Denny Colt is actually George W. Bush from Arkham, Massachussetts, employed by the Cryptic Corporation" or "Denny Colt is actually Bono, lead singer of U2, who is currently unemployed" and linking back to a website that says the exact same thing. As long as neither assertion is true, neither have any real-world effect on the person known as "Denny Colt" whatsoever. However, if "Denny Colt" were the real name of a real person, that would, of course, be different, and maybe then he'd have something to complain about, wouldn't he?

Opponents of protecting Wikipedians even had the very nerve to say that being personally outed was at best an "nconvenience."

Ah, but at least they knew how to spell the word "inconvenience," and they know the difference between the phrase "at best" and "at worst."

The nerve of some people!

[papaya]

Here's a new twist: an (ex)-arbcom member puts in his oar

Things are riled up enough there as it is, but shouldn't he recuse himself?

[GlassBeadGame]

I understand and respect a person's right to publish pseudonymously. This is especially true when weak, oppressed and powerless persons seek to speak out against authority. But taking on a pseudonym does not create any expectation that others will not attempt to learn that person's true identify. Exercising authority under a pseudonym is provocative, and invites attempts by others, especially those aggrieved by the exercise of that power, to identify the person. There is nothing wrong with attempts at ascertaining, and making public, true information obtained by lawful means about person assuming pseudonymous identifies. Referring to this activity as "stalking" or "terrorism" is the worst kind of whining. The Secret Police and the Star Chamber cannot take any moral high ground.

This post has been edited by GlassBeadGame: Sat 14th April 2007, 2:12am

[Somey]

shouldn't he recuse himself?

To be honest, I don't see why he should have to, really. None of the others did, and he isn't saying anything that hasn't already been asserted many times already...

The problem for them is that this has now lasted over two weeks. I would invite these people to try this: Go over to Google, the Wikipedian Search Engine of Choice, and type in (with the quotes), "personal information about wikipedians." It will take you to the "Attack sites" talk page - right now, at least, it's the number-one result. Wikipedia Review isn't in the results at all, neither is Hivemind. But if you go to that WP page, you'll figure out where all the juicy info is, quite quickly indeed! So... why make it easy for real stalkers?

Admittedly, in our case it's juicy info about only five or six people, but that's something, at least...

Anyway, nobody here wants to actually hurt anybody, we just want to explain certain peoples' POV's or their odd/abusive behavior patterns. (Or in Katefan0's case, a clear conflict of interest.)

Sooo... I just think they have to ask themselves: If someone out there is actually looking for personal information about Wikipedians, what's the first thing they're gonna do?

[JohnA]

I understand and respect a person's right to publish pseudonymously. This is especially true when weak, oppressed and powerless persons seek to speak out against authority. But taking on a pseudonym does not create any expectation that others will not attempt to learn that person's true identify. Exercising authority under a pseudonym is provocative, and invites attempts by others, especially those aggrieved by the exercise of that power, to identify the person. There is nothing wrong with attempts at ascertaining, and making public, true information obtained by lawful means about person assuming pseudonymous identifies. Referring to this activity as "stalking" or "terrorism" is the worst kind of whining. The Secret Police and the Star Chamber cannot take any moral high ground.

I also support the right of people to publish pseudonymously (how could I not? I publish pseudonymously) their opinions and supporting arguments and citations to those opinions.

I do NOT support the right of people to publish authoritative historical or factual information into the public record without proper attribution or audit. There is a difference.

Anyone who thinks otherwise had better read 1984 and stop making excuses for what it is a gratuitous attempt by multiple propaganda groupings to rewrite and pervert history, especially modern history. Wikipedia is, by virtue of its importance in search rankings, a most dangerous assault on liberal democratic principles and the right of free peoples to be properly informed.

[Cedric]

I understand and respect a person's right to publish pseudonymously. This is especially true when weak, oppressed and powerless persons seek to speak out against authority. But taking on a pseudonym does not create any expectation that others will not attempt to learn that person's true identify. Exercising authority under a pseudonym is provocative, and invites attempts by others, especially those aggrieved by the exercise of that power, to identify the person. There is nothing wrong with attempts at ascertaining, and making public, true information obtained by lawful means about person assuming pseudonymous identifies. Referring to this activity as "stalking" or "terrorism" is the worst kind of whining. The Secret Police and the Star Chamber cannot take any moral high ground.

Absolutely! Such people are the real "wiki-whiners".

[SqueakBox]

I understand and respect a person's right to publish pseudonymously. This is especially true when weak, oppressed and powerless persons seek to speak out against authority. But taking on a pseudonym does not create any expectation that others will not attempt to learn that person's true identify. Exercising authority under a pseudonym is provocative, and invites attempts by others, especially those aggrieved by the exercise of that power, to identify the person. There is nothing wrong with attempts at ascertaining, and making public, true information obtained by lawful means about person assuming pseudonymous identifies. Referring to this activity as "stalking" or "terrorism" is the worst kind of whining. The Secret Police and the Star Chamber cannot take any moral high ground.

Absolutely! Such people are the real "wiki-whiners".

Daniel Brandt one of the weak and opporessed? That's certainly an original idea but can you source it?