Professional journalist is an anonymous admin Options Rating

[Daniel Brandt]

I just put this on Katefan0's Talk page:

I request that you identify yourself on your user page as (name redacted), employed as a reporter by Congressional Quarterly and accredited through them by the Senate Press Gallery. I also request that you provide a current photo on your user page. I believe that your failure to identify yourself violates the spirit of journalistic ethics. Administrators should not be anonymous on Wikipedia in light of their power to shape content. --Daniel Brandt

Half an hour later: My comment is gone, no trace in history, page is protected. Golly, if I can't send her a message this way, should I send it to her editor at Congressional Quarterly? What do you think I should do?

[Pat Kennys evil twin]

Send away. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I didn't know they could remove edits from history.

[Sgrayban]

Daniel Brandt you never cease to amaze me. How you find out who these admin are is facinating.

Send away. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I didn't know they could remove edits from history.

Yup -- they can delete the page and restore just the edits they want.

[Daniel Brandt]

This one could get interesting. If her bosses at Congressional Quarterly think Wikipedia is God's gift to humankind (very unlikely in an election year when objectivity and accountability should be important to the media), then perhaps the Standing Committee of the Senate Press Gallery might have a different opinion. If the Committee even slightly leans in the direction of frowning on Wikipedia, it becomes an embarrassment to CQ and a news story all by itself. I don't think CQ can afford to ask the Committee to let their reporter, who also has a secret double life as a Wikipedia admin who edits articles about Congress on Wikipedia, keep her gallery press pass. I sent her an email at her cq.com address repeating what got deleted from her Talk page. If she doesn't either disappear from the list of admins at Wikipedia, or identify herself on her user page, then I'll write her boss. If that doesn't work, I'll contact the Standing Committee.

Accreditation for Daily Newspapers to cover both House and Senate is handled through the Senate Press Gallery.

All reporters seeking admission to the press galleries must submit a completed application form along with an $8 check made out to the Standing Committee of Correspondents.

Please hand-deliver all completed forms to the Senate Press Gallery, Room S-316, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC 20510. Attention: Michael Cavaiola, Accreditation, Senate Press Gallery. DO NOT MAIL THE FORM as security procedures will delay the receipt of your application by up to a month.

Mr. Cavaiola will present all new applications to the members of the Standing Committee of Correspondents for their review. Three members of the committee must approve each application according to the standing rules and procedures.

I think she should probably do this: a ) resign her adminship, b ) identify herself and her employer on her User page, with a current photo, and c ) announce on her User page that she will not edit any articles having to do with Congress or Congressional politics.

[Sgrayban]

And lets not forget that this shows a direct tie between the Senate Press Corp and wikipedia. That could a very interesting link the media in general could enjoy.

[Daniel Brandt]

Looks like she's already folded up her Wikipedia tent.

[Sgrayban]

What strikes me as odd is this..........

If someone gets found out that they are part of a congressional press agency and they think there is nothing wrong with it why leave? It just shows that they knew it was wrong and a conflict of interest and most likely broke some ethic's rule they are required to abide by.

She also deleted her userpage and protected it.

22:02, 25 May 2006 Katefan0 deleted "User:Katefan0" (Well, that's it for me folks. It's been great getting to know you all.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...User%3AKatefan0

21:41, 25 May 2006 Katefan0 protected User:Katefan0 ([edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...User%3AKatefan0

[Skyring]

What strikes me as odd is this..........

If someone gets found out that they are part of a congressional press agency and they think there is nothing wrong with it why leave? It just shows that they knew it was wrong and a conflict of interest and most likely broke some ethic's rule they are required to abide by.

On the face of it, you may well be right. If the accusation is garbage, then why have such a sudden and extreme reaction?

Possibly she was somebody else entirely and didn't want her identity revealed, but that would just be the same thing by a different name.

My guess is that the accusation is correct, she was outed and decided to cover her tracks. Nevertheless, her contributions remain and are available for anyone with an interest in text analysis to compare the content and style of the two identities.

[Sgrayban]

That's what I was thinking....... If there wasn't any issues all she had to do was admit who she was instead of deleting her tracks or at least trying to.

Might be worth something if Daniel did file a ethic's violation on her though. A outed journalist does make the news very often especially one that used her position as a means to push her POV on wikipedia.

Oh ya... I am pretty damn sure her admin friends knew who she was. Especially "Musical Linguist."

[Donny]

Yup -- they can delete the page and restore just the edits they want.

It's a little harder than that, they have to actually mess around with the database itself using scripts in order to remove an edit from the history. An ordinary admin can't do it.

SlimVirgin: Unbelievable that this has happened. You are one of the best contributors we have, and I very much hope you will reconsider. It's terrible how much damage that one individual has done.

I agree that Daniel Brandt is doing a lot of damage to the unaccountable, abusive admins on Wikipedia. Good job, Daniel! Keep it up.

[Sgrayban]

It's a little harder than that, they have to actually mess around with the database itself using scripts in order to remove an edit from the history. An ordinary admin can't do it.

So they got a developer to remove it. Even more interesting.

BTW -- We see you Mr. Fat boy Phil AKA Snowspinner....... Having fun being a trolling little hobbit there?

[Sgrayban]

Half an hour later: My comment is gone, no trace in history, page is protected. Golly, if I can't send her a message this way, should I send it to her editor at Congressional Quarterly? What do you think I should do?

It is something her editors need to know. Working journalists have long used psuedonyms for out-of-school publications, but their editors have a right know.

Especially in light of the State Department's endorsement of Wikipedia yesterday, government involvement in shaping Wikipedia content and in shaping the general atmosphere at Wikipedia is increasingly a matter of public interest.

I believe I said something to that effect here.

[Sgrayban]

That's why I believe she broke/violated some ethic's ruling she was suppose to abide by and that's why she left.

As fast as she left it certainly does seem to be the case though. No mention of being found out or anything. Nothing about personal info being posted. Nothing. She deleted and blanked and left.

[Daniel Brandt]

This is a very serious situation for a Washington DC journalist. This person graduated from U.Texas at Austin journalism school in 2001, where she was a senior reporter and deputy news editor at the student newspaper, The Daily Texan. Then she interned for the Houston Chronicle for a year. After that she had minor job in Washington DC, and for the last two years or so has been at the Congressional Quarterly. She is on her way up. For journalists, the "big city" is Washington DC, and that's where she wants to be.

Her job is the Congressional beat. Congress wants to know that the reporters who have the easiest access are of professional caliber. To assure Congress that this is the case, a system was set up whereby selected journalists from a cross-section of major media form a standing committee. This committee decides who gets gallery press passes. She has a gallery press pass.

One thing that a professional journalist must always do is properly and completely identify themselves to those they interview, before the interview starts. I think it is safe to assume that her employer does not know that she became an anonymous administrator on Wikipedia last September. It's also safe to assume that she did not inform the standing committee that her gallery press pass application needed to be modified when she became active on Wikipedia.

On Wikipedia, she was making edits on articles about Congresspeople, and about Congressional politics and political issues. Wikipedia is arguably much more influential than the Congressional Quarterly, even though CQ has a good reputation. Anonymous administrators at Wikipedia have tremendous power to shape the content of articles.

It is clear to me that she should have identified herself as an administrator at Wikipedia to everyone in Washington DC that she came in contact with professionally. Her position at Wikipedia was an obvious conflict of interest to the extent that it was not disclosed.

I don't plan to pursue this at this particular time. I'm not a professional journalist, and while I understand their concerns, I'm not particularly incensed. But some journalists, fearing that ethics scandals like this need to be dealt with speedily in order to preserve what access they currently enjoy in the halls of Congress, may feel differently.

What incenses me are the reactions from Wikipedians over this. You have a high-school student, Jaranda, saying that he was "harassed and blackmailed by that idiot Brandt a few weeks ago," a FeloniosMonk implying that I'm a "professional victim" with a "goon squad," and someone named Cool_Cat who doesn't understand why "Katefan0" decided to quit Wikipedia, and why she allows me to "intimidate" her.

What a tiny, tiny world they live in at Wikipedia. They really don't understand that there's a big world out there, and they cannot get away with playing the same kind of games in that big world, that they get away with on Wikipedia.

[Lir]

Her position at Wikipedia was an obvious conflict of interest to the extent that it was not disclosed.

I agree, journalists should be honest about who they are reporting to, and this was apparently not what was occurring.

What incenses me are the reactions from Wikipedians over this. You have a high-school student, Jaranda, saying that he was "harassed and blackmailed by that idiot Brandt a few weeks ago," a FeloniosMonk implying that I'm a "professional victim" with a "goon squad," and someone named Cool_Cat who doesn't understand why "Katefan0" decided to quit Wikipedia, and why she allows me to "intimidate" her.

You know, of course, it is libel against you; if you ever want to sue, Id be more than happy to testify under oath that Wikipedia's comments against you have caused me to lose respect for you, and even question your sanity -- Wikipedia makes you seem like a complete crazed cook, and only a self-conducted investigation by myself has reversed those initial impressions, which are still nevertheless regularly assaulted by Wikipedia's campaign against you. As I am a historian, with an interest in the very issues discussed at your NameSpace site, Wikipedia's slander is thus clearly affecting your professional repute.

[Alkivar]

She didnt exactly hide the fact she was a journalist...

From her now deleted userpage:

"During the daytime (and often into the night), I am a political reporter in Washington, D.C. So far I have been able to tamp down my desire to add myself to a List of newspaper writers. However, my will to resist such things is notoriously weak, so someone else might want to monitor this page."

[Daniel Brandt]

2005-02-28: Identifies herself by name on aqlogic.com (a wiki, talk page of a User:Grouse)

2005-03-23: Identifies herself as a reporter in Washington DC

2003-11-05: In post 1416, identifies herself as a Congressional reporter

2006-05-25: A search for her last name on the Congressional gallery list reveals that she uses "Kathryn" and not "Kathy," and works for CQ. This is a breakthrough, because there is another political reporter by the same name in the Washington area who writes for the LaRouche organization. But that one has been doing it since at least the mid-1990s. From Katefan0's user page, it is clear that she graduated from journalism school in 2001 in Texas, so she's not the LaRouche reporter.

2006-05-25: Searching back for "Daily Texan" and her full name in quotes it's clear that Kathryn is her full first name.

2006-05-25: The Congressional Quarterly staff page shows that she is still there as a reporter.

2006-05-26: From her latest sign-off: "But this latest attempt to compromise my privacy, combined with a threat to try to somehow have my livelihood taken from me, caps off a long two months of reevaluating whether volunteering here is worth it."

Excuse me, I wasn't the one who compromised your privacy. You were, by leaving a trail of cookie crumbs all across the web. And that was after you stuck your hand in the cookie jar, which you shouldn't have done in the first place as a professional journalist. I merely pointed out what every journalist already knows, and spent a couple of hours surfing the web.

Isn't that what journalism is about -- connecting the dots that others don't have the time or energy to connect?

[everyking]

I find this worrying. Was Katefan a controversial or bullying admin? Or was she just working constructively to build the encyclopedia? From reading this thread I can't see anything that she did wrong, and I find it distressing that she's been treated this way--of course, I am a firm believer in the importance, even necessity, of editor anonymity, quite unlike Brandt, so perhaps it is just a philosophical difference based on that alone. But anyone, I think, can see the concern inherent in one person's philosophical position, like Brandt's, causing serious problems for people in this way, and by extension affecting the encyclopedia as a whole.

[Sgrayban]

I find this worrying. Was Katefan a controversial or bullying admin? Or was she just working constructively to build the encyclopedia? From reading this thread I can't see anything that she did wrong, and I find it distressing that she's been treated this way--of course, I am a firm believer in the importance, even necessity, of editor anonymity, quite unlike Brandt, so perhaps it is just a philosophical difference based on that alone. But anyone, I think, can see the concern inherent in one person's philosophical position, like Brandt's, causing serious problems for people in this way, and by extension affecting the encyclopedia as a whole.

First off she broke federal guildelines when she edited on WP since she has a Senate Gallery Pass which gives her full access to all proceedings or at least the majority of them.

She made edits on political figures currently in office most likely based on the information she had gotten. BTW I do believe that in order to get a Gallery Pass you have to pass a Background check by the FBI and CIA.

When she edited she most likely broke the ethic rules on passing information from the Senate floor to WP and the congressional members articles on WP. If she added or edited anything that was ruled confidential she could be in serious trouble with the US Gov. or at the very least the congressional members.

There are way to many possibilities here on what actions she has taken on WP as a admin and editor on political figures. But I know for a fact she was suppose to identify herself as a Senate Gallery Journalist. Because that position does, and is manditory, that a she pass a full background check plus many other security related policies.

Overall it showed "Bad Faith" on her status as a journalist and who she worked for when she did not disclose that.

[Skyring]

I find this worrying. Was Katefan a controversial or bullying admin? Or was she just working constructively to build the encyclopedia? From reading this thread I can't see anything that she did wrong, and I find it distressing that she's been treated this way--of course, I am a firm believer in the importance, even necessity, of editor anonymity, quite unlike Brandt, so perhaps it is just a philosophical difference based on that alone. But anyone, I think, can see the concern inherent in one person's philosophical position, like Brandt's, causing serious problems for people in this way, and by extension affecting the encyclopedia as a whole.

I echo Everyking's sentiments. Just browsing back through her contributions, it seems as if she's been a valuable contributor and a diligent admin. Unless there's some history I should know about, of course. She mentions having an aged relative to support and cannot run the risk of losing her job. It looks to me as if Daniel's research has been good and has drawn blood, but I must question the aim and the target.

This post has been edited by Skyring:

[Daniel Brandt]

All anonymous admins are fair game. An anonymous admin who admits to being a professional journalist is particularly interesting, because journalists have standards that have evolved over many decades.

I guess it's a philosophical difference. No, more than that, it's a historical difference. I do not believe that the Internet is so wonderful that all the old rules should be thrown out.

[Sgrayban]

2006-05-26: From her latest sign-off: "But this latest attempt to compromise my privacy, combined with a threat to try to somehow have my livelihood taken from me, caps off a long two months of reevaluating whether volunteering here is worth it."

Excuse me, I wasn't the one who compromised your privacy. You were, by leaving a trail of cookie crumbs all across the web. And that was after you stuck your hand in the cookie jar, which you shouldn't have done in the first place as a professional journalist. I merely pointed out what every journalist already knows, and spent a couple of hours surfing the web.

Isn't that what journalism is about -- connecting the dots that others don't have the time or energy to connect?

The very first question I asked myself was this... If she has not broken ANY ethic rules or released confidential information that these reporters do get from time to time why would she just up and leave? Did she edit a or few congressional member's that she was not suppose to? Did edit them and removed information to have them look better at the request of the Congress Person?

She clearly left a trail -- WP username is the same as her Yahoo nick. Yahoo is like a gold mine for information especially on there forums. She clearly states she is a Congressional reporter on Yahoo. Even says so on a WP talk page.

Everyone needs to think outside the box on this one. Its not a clear-cut case at all. There are many ethical questions I have here about this.

And another thing she has forgotten so easly is that she is a high profile journalist who is easy to track down. However she claims her privacy was violated and tries to convince the rest of them that is the case. All lies. She needs to learn or re-learn her ethics she was taught in journalism classes.

[Skyring]

All anonymous admins are fair game. An anonymous admin who admits to being a professional journalist is particularly interesting, because journalists have standards that have evolved over many decades.

I can follow the ethics question, sort of, but it seems to me that Katefan's leaving has hurt WP, both by losing a good editor and a good admin and that blame for this will be sheeted home to WR in general and you in particular.

My preference is to see WP improve by getting rid of bad admins, or at least forcing them to lift their game. Everyone benefits in that way including WR.

As an exercise in power it was an impressive feat. I think we've got a list of better targets for you to aim at.

[everyking]

All anonymous admins are fair game. An anonymous admin who admits to being a professional journalist is particularly interesting, because journalists have standards that have evolved over many decades.

I guess it's a philosophical difference. No, more than that, it's a historical difference. I do not believe that the Internet is so wonderful that all the old rules should be thrown out.

Anonymity is very valuable to the project, Brandt. You don't seem to understand or believe that. The level of openness and freedom granted by anonymity is a big part of what has made WP so successful. In any case, though, what benefit can possibly arise from Kate's departure from the project? I can only see harm, and I think you ought to feel guilty about this, and retract your threats to her so she feels comfortable contributing again.

[Sgrayban]

And again both Skyring and everyking demand to think in a narrow minded way instead of thinking outside the box. Typical wiki style and very disappointing.

[ownage]

I don't see why total anonymity would benefit wikipedia, since Wikipedia is not the place to leak controversial or sensitive information. If anything, anonimity is the reason why so many people dare insert false and malicious information into wikipedia articles.
The fact that she doesn't want people to know who she is shows that she knows her actions may be inappropriate.

[Skyring]

And again both Skyring and everyking demand to think in a narrow minded way instead of thinking outside the box. Typical wiki style and very disappointing.

I think that our objective should be not to destroy WP, but to destroy WR.

If WP improves to the point where WR is no longer neccessary, then we've done our job.

How does forcing Katefan0 out of WP help anyone? We've probably got a few more people mad at us that we'd rather have onside or at least neutral.

[Sgrayban]

Katefan0 might have been the best editor/admin WP ever had but the main point it this...

If she edited political members such as any current serving Congressional Member she did so by using information she has gotten as a Seante Gallery Journalist. I view that as a high ethical question. If you don't then you have issues to think about.

When she made edits to remove the KKK connection on a certain Congressional Member to read ex(?)KKK connections that clearly shows bad faith as a journalist when she knows that the fact is that this member of congress was part of the KKK at one time. Trying to make this congressional member look better on WP ruin's its encyclopedia veiw because in Brittanica it states without any reservations that this member of Congress was connected to the KKK but renounced his association.

Now is that right for her to show a POV in favour of this Congressional Member? Is that ethical of her as a Senate Gallery Journalist? NO its not.

[Pat Kennys evil twin]

Do we have enough on her to file a complaint with the senate?

[Skyring]

Katefan0 might have been the best editor/admin WP ever had but the main point it this...

If she edited political members such as any current serving Congressional Member she did so by using information she has gotten as a Seante Gallery Journalist. I view that as a high ethical question. If you don't then you have issues to think about.

The function of a journalist is to get information out. I can't see anything wrong with a journalist editing WP using information they have gained as part of their job. It's not like they are breaching national security or anything. They are expected to gain information from Congress and publish it.

The ethical question is that maybe she should have identified herself as a political journalist on WP, but I really cannot view this as any great sin. We're not the police or the AJA or the CQ - why on earth should we care?

[Sgrayban]

(name redacted) might have been the best editor/admin WP ever had but the main point it this...

If she edited political members such as any current serving Congressional Member she did so by using information she has gotten as a Seante Gallery Journalist. I view that as a high ethical question. If you don't then you have issues to think about.

The function of a journalist is to get information out. I can't see anything wrong with a journalist editing WP using information they have gained as part of their job. It's not like they are breaching national security or anything. They are expected to gain information from Congress and publish it.

The ethical question is that maybe she should have identified herself as a political journalist on WP, but I really cannot view this as any great sin. We're not the police or the AJA or the CQ - why on earth should we care?

Do you know for a fact she didn't edit and add anything that was a national security issue ? I can't but that is the point. We have NO clue what she added or deleted was ethical or not.

ITS BAD FAITH so stop being WP:DICK's about it. She edited without fully disclosing who she was and what her job entailed. She edited MANY congressional leaders articles.

Personally I have a mind to find each congressional members article she ever edited on and calling there offices in Washington and informing them of the Journalist edits done on them without her disclosing her identify on WP and her direct connection to the Senate Gallery Press Office. That will certainly light a fire under someone's ass there and demand a answer from her and her employer. Not to mention in her position not asking permission to edit any of them.

[kotepho]

I don't know who said it, but no, they did not get a delevoper to remove the edit.

# 2006-05-25 23:27:21 Musical Linguist restored "User talk:Katefan0" (163 revisions restored)
# 2006-05-25 23:25:31 Musical Linguist deleted "User talk:Katefan0" (Personal information)
# 2006-05-25 20:36:09 Katefan0 protected User talk:Katefan0 (pi [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])
# 2006-05-25 20:25:16 Katefan0 restored "User talk:Katefan0" (151 revisions restored)
# 2006-05-25 20:23:08 Katefan0 deleted "User talk:Katefan0" (pi)

They did the way any admin normally does it (without the page move). Developers can do it easier and actually remove the edits from the database, but this was not a case of that. Normally the developers are only called in for cases were someone in charge doesn't want even an admin to be able to see it, or if the page history is very, very long as it fucks up sometimes and it rapes the servers.

The only thing bad about Katefan0 is she always top posts on wikien-l, fucking annoying.

[Skyring]

Do you know for a fact she didn't edit and add anything that was a national security issue ? I can't but that is the point. We have NO clue what she added or deleted was ethical or not.

I've got a clue. If she had edited WP to include material that was sensitive to national security she would have had a lot more than WR on her case!

[Sgrayban]

Do you know for a fact she didn't edit and add anything that was a national security issue ? I can't but that is the point. We have NO clue what she added or deleted was ethical or not.

I've got a clue. If she had edited WP to include material that was sensitive to national security she would have had a lot more than WR on her case!

And you avoid the other issues that are important so conviniently.

[Donny]

I find this worrying. Was Katefan a controversial or bullying admin? Or was she just working constructively to build the encyclopedia?

I don't know the ins and outs of this case, and I've previously suggested that it is not necessary to chase after all the admins, but the fact that she got a message of sympathy from SlimVirgin suggests Daniel Brandt is doing something right. It is necessary to increase the level of accountability in the Wikipedia project one way or another.

[Sgrayban]

Indeed....

[everyking]

I find this worrying. Was Katefan a controversial or bullying admin? Or was she just working constructively to build the encyclopedia?

I don't know the ins and outs of this case, and I've previously suggested that it is not necessary to chase after all the admins, but the fact that she got a message of sympathy from SlimVirgin suggests Daniel Brandt is doing something right. It is necessary to increase the level of accountability in the Wikipedia project one way or another.

Personal accountability regarding behavior should, I believe, come through process and community involvement. This is nothing even remotely like that.

[Sgrayban]

*sigh* how sad the blinders of logic are used here. Oh well maybe they should take some ethic's classes in college like I have done.

[Skyring]

I don't know the ins and outs of this case, and I've previously suggested that it is not necessary to chase after all the admins, but the fact that she got a message of sympathy from SlimVirgin suggests Daniel Brandt is doing something right. It is necessary to increase the level of accountability in the Wikipedia project one way or another.

Well I also see MusicalLinguist giving a great deal of support and she's a problem admin. But without some specific reason to chase after Katefan0, I have to express my severe reservations.

Wikipedia is just a website. Having status on WP is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things except for Jimbo who gets all the glory (and takes all the flak). But losing your job is a big deal. I know a bit about Washington and it's a town where if you fall off the ladder, things can get real tough real fast. Destroying someone's career or life is not something that should be done lightly. If you want to talk ethics, ask yourself just what sort of ethical code allows you to do this just to prove some point.

This post has been edited by Skyring:

[Sgrayban]

I don't know the ins and outs of this case, and I've previously suggested that it is not necessary to chase after all the admins, but the fact that she got a message of sympathy from SlimVirgin suggests Daniel Brandt is doing something right. It is necessary to increase the level of accountability in the Wikipedia project one way or another.

Well I also see MusicalLinguist giving a great deal of support and she's a problem admin. But without some specific reason to chase after Katefan0, I have to express my severe reservations.

Wikipedia is just a website. Having status on WP is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things except for Jimbo who gets all the glory (and takes all the flak). But losing your job is a big deal. I know a bit about Washington and it's a town where if you fall off the ladder, things can get real tough real fast. Destroying someone's career or life is not something that should be done lightly. If you want to talk ethics, ask yourself just what sort of ethical code allows you to do this just to prove some point.

Ohhhhh a nice wiki-reversal tatic...... Our ethic's was pointing out that Kathy did not identify herself as a professional journalist working on the Senate floor with access to information that might have beeen used to favour one political party over another. Editing political articles including current Members of Congress where she should have not been in the first place. Further she edited and even went so far as to protect articles pertaining to the Members of Congress which is certainly a bias approach in her ethical position as a Journalist on the Senate Floor.

I could go on and on but I am sure you still will not get that no matter how many times I have repeated that here.

Ethically speaking say you are a member of some great importance and me as a journalist with inside information or an agenda to to smear you or praise you and I edit your article on WP under the adminship role. I know your dirt or I know your praise and make edits according to the will that bends me. Is that ethical? NO is not.

Still don't get it? Take some ethic course's for journalist then.

[Donny]

Wikipedia is just a website.

Here's the old chestnut: the "Wikipedia doesn't matter" argument. Who was it who first pointed out the contradiction of the "it's only Wikipedia" argument? I think it was Jason Scott. Yes, here it is.

Having status on WP is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things except for Jimbo who gets all the glory (and takes all the flak). But losing your job is a big deal. I know a bit about Washington and it's a town where if you fall off the ladder, things can get real tough real fast. Destroying someone's career or life is not something that should be done lightly. If you want to talk ethics, ask yourself just what sort of ethical code allows you to do this just to prove some point.

As I understand it her code of ethics forbids her from doing what she was doing. It's interesting that you want to play the ethics game. I didn't reveal her information, but I've seen little or no evidence of any ethics or principles being applied by any Wikipedian, except Jimbo Wales perhaps, who's taken some ethical stands: perhaps because he's one of the few people in a position to.

In my case I was subject to unethical harassment and blocks. Oh, that's right, "it's only Wikipedia", pull that one out again. In which case, if it's only Wikipedia, and Wikipedia doesn't matter, desysop all the current sysops and hand control over to me. After all, it's only a website. It doesn't matter who's in control. Oh, what? Don't want to do it? So it seems that Wikipedia *does* matter, when it's convenient for your purposes. Some contradiction, Shirley? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Sgrayban]

Skyring need's to take some ethic classes or at the very least find a ethic's professor and ask them what they think about this. I am damn sure they will be shocked that she edited under anonymous and as a admin on wikipedia.

If skyring is a admin on Wikipedia you are now making my judgement of your qualifications as one in serious question here. If your a editor on wikipedia I suggest you take some ethic classes like I have had to and learn what a real journalist is expected to do and there responsibility.

[Skyring]

Ohhhhh a nice wiki-reversal tatic...... Our ethic's was pointing out that Kathy did not identify herself as a professional journalist working on the Senate floor with access to information that might have beeen used to favour one political party over another. Editing political articles including current Members of Congress where she should have not been in the first place. Further she edited and even went so far as to protect articles pertaining to the Members of Congress which is certainly a bias approach in her ethical position as a Journalist on the Senate Floor. Still don't get it? Take some ethic course's for journalist then.

Errr. I have been a political journalist here in Canberra. Political journos usually have information that favours one side over another. Politicians go out of their way to present information that shows them in a good light and their opponents in a bad light, and they hope that journos will publish the info.

Identifying yourself as a journalist to an interview subject is ethical. But do you have to identify yourself as a journalist when you write a political article? Of course not. Editorials are often political in nature and they are never signed. Likewise news articles of a political nature. Often they are anonymous, especially when syndicated.

[Sgrayban]

Let me pose another ethical question.

I work on the NY Stock Exchange floor as a trader.... I take some information I learned about and I go to a online stock trading company who doesn't know who I am and I go make a stock trade based on information I got from the stock exchange floor and make a killing from it.... Ethical or not ethical?

Same rules applies to Kathy here..... No matter how you try to dice and mince it she was ethically wrong in what she did there.

Ohhhhh a nice wiki-reversal tatic...... Our ethic's was pointing out that Kathy did not identify herself as a professional journalist working on the Senate floor with access to information that might have beeen used to favour one political party over another. Editing political articles including current Members of Congress where she should have not been in the first place. Further she edited and even went so far as to protect articles pertaining to the Members of Congress which is certainly a bias approach in her ethical position as a Journalist on the Senate Floor. Still don't get it? Take some ethic course's for journalist then.

Errr. I have been a political journalist here in Canberra. Political journos usually have information that favours one side over another. Politicians go out of their way to present information that shows them in a good light and their opponents in a bad light, and they hope that journos will publish the info.

Identifying yourself as a journalist to an interview subject is ethical. But do you have to identify yourself as a journalist when you write a political article? Of course not. Editorials are often political in nature and they are never signed. Likewise news articles of a political nature. Often they are anonymous, especially when syndicated.

Your a political journalist? Oh this is to good to be true and explains exactly why Carr has the misconception that he is always right.

But your arguement still does not mean anything here. Wikipedia is used as a source by many places now. Your implying that its perfrectly acceptable as a political journalist to edit political canidates profiles to reflect either a bad or good agenda under an anoymous name. Nice.......

You scare me a lot now and only confirms my thoughts on contacting each Member of Congress to alert them about "Katefan0" and her edits.

[Skyring]

If skyring is a admin on Wikipedia you are now making my judgement of your qualifications as one in serious question here. If your a editor on wikipedia I suggest you take some ethic classes like I have had to and learn what a real journalist is expected to do and there responsibility.

One thing real journalists can do is spell. But that's a cheap shot. If you want to see my status on WP, just check out [[User:Skyring]] and you'll see exactly why I think WP is sadly flawed in the administration and ethics departments.

So I can say that Wikipedia is just a website, because I don't have anything to defend. It's not real life. As for Katefan0, if it comes to a choice between being an admin on WP and having a well-paid job, just which way would you jump?

[Donny]

Identifying yourself as a journalist to an interview subject is ethical. But do you have to identify yourself as a journalist when you write a political article? Of course not. Editorials are often political in nature and they are never signed. Likewise news articles of a political nature. Often they are anonymous, especially when syndicated.

This isn't relevant to the case in question. If a newspaper prints libel, the newspaper itself rather than the journalist becomes responsible, and frequently is held responsible, as happened recently to the Daily Telegraph and the Christian Science Monitor regarding George Galloway, who got 2 million pounds from them for libel. In the case of Wikipedia, which is far more widely available and popular than most newspapers, the situation is not clear. As far as I understand, this is the whole point of Daniel Brandt's campaign against anonymous editing on Wikipedia. If Kathy writes a biased or libellous article, who is responsible, Kathy, whose anonymity is protected, or Wikipedia itself? This is the nature of the issue. I strongly support Daniel Brandt's campaign for accountability in Wikipedia.

[Skyring]

But your arguement still does not mean anything here. Wikipedia is used as a source by many places now. Your implying that its perfrectly acceptable as a political journalist to edit political canidates profiles to reflect either a bad or good agenda under an anoymous name. Nice.......

So what? The New York Times or The Washington Post are well-respected sources of information and if you pick up any edition you will find political articles deliberately slanted one way or another. It's what political journalists do for a living. Write political stories. If you read a particular columnist for a while you will get a feel for which way they lean.

Newspapers present a variety of views from a variety of sources to give balance. WP has NPOV to do the same thing. I really cannot see any ethical problem here.

[Sgrayban]

*sigh* I give up.... Your way to dense and close minded about this and fail to see the issue at hand.... Good luck in your political journalist carreer.

A journalist is suppose to be a non-bias person that presents both sides of the issues or story so that the public is well INFORMED enough to make a decision on there own. Not a editor on wikipedia as an anonymous admin.

The key word is non-bias.

[guy]

One thing's for sure - this has made Daniel Brandt even more notable. Will this be added to his Wikipedia article?

[Sgrayban]

Heh I past you in number of posts now (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post makes the exact number of days in a year....... 365

[Sgrayban]

This has increasingly become the code of the road, especially with Gannett and the larger chains. But undercover reporting has an ethical place among the tools of the trade. Courts have drawn some lines. If one goes to work for a company with the intent of exposing that company's practices and is on the payroll of a company at the same time, there can be a legal conflict of interests. But reporters legitimately can do hidden camera interviews. Stone Phillips exposes of sexual predators demonstrates an interesting line. He tells them they are on camera after its already too late. I think he does that for ABC as I recall. The ethical obligation to readers or viewers is to find out as much about a situation as they have a right and need to know. But the ethical obligation to sources is to give them every opportunity to respond and explain their perspective in the context of stories that might reflect them in a bad light.

in Katefan0's situation, her unique profile was suspect because her access to information was a product of her professional reputation, but she appeared to be using information and access she gleaned from her day job to inform her Wikipedia habit.

Avoiding untoward appearances is part of journalistic ethics, though most journalists appear untoward to somebody sometime. Besides having been exposed, Katefan0's fault at wikipedia, from my quick analysis, was using the hate-language of wikipedia to slander editors who contributed contrary to the slant she was trying to enforce, then using administrative power to back up her actions.

Stone Phillips and the hidden camera's isn't exactly new "news" either. Its been repeated so often in local and national media that when its used and the people are exposed it really shouldn't be labeled as a unfair journalist report nor should it even be used as an example for this issue at hand. Anyone the complains because of it is simply a stupid person hince why these pedo perps are caught over and over again.

Katefan0's hate comment's on WP can be used directly at her job as a professional Senate Journalist. If this is how she acts behind a anonymous name it shows lack of character and degrades her as a journalist of any kind. There have been many times when a journalist thought they were off camera and they weren't when they made some smart, vulgar or derogatory remark that landed them in hot water.

[danielshays]

I just put this on Katefan0's Talk page:

I request that you identify yourself on your user page as (name redacted), employed as a reporter by Congressional Quarterly and accredited through them by the Senate Press Gallery. I also request that you provide a current photo on your user page. I believe that your failure to identify yourself violates the spirit of journalistic ethics. Administrators should not be anonymous on Wikipedia in light of their power to shape content. --Daniel Brandt

Half an hour later: My comment is gone, no trace in history, page is protected. Golly, if I can't send her a message this way, should I send it to her editor at Congressional Quarterly? What do you think I should do?

Yes, you should. I know what i'm gonna do. Send it out all over Wikipedia.

[Sgrayban]

Maggie please don't...... We are in the process of working on this issue and you are only going to hurt us.

[Selina]

Well, not us, but that would be unnecessary nastiness towards Katefan0

She realized she's been caught, she quit while she was ahead, leave her be

It would be have been more sensible to not edit in the first place though when there's clearly a huge conflict of interest and political scandal in the making. :/

[Sgrayban]

Indeed.....

[Daniel Brandt]

The ethical guidelines that journalists are expected to follow exist for the benefit of journalism. Mainly they consist of: 1) identifying yourself up front to those you interview; 2) anything the person says is on the record unless there is prior agreement to the contrary; 3) prior agreements regarding "not for attribution" or "off the record" for certain bits of information must be respected by the journalist. There is also the two-source guideline, but it is violated frequently because too often it depends on the specific situation. In very rare cases, a journalist might go undercover (get a job in the meat-packing industry to expose health hazards, for example). That sort of situation doesn't fly unless it's very clear that the public health and safety is involved. Chip Berlet has posed as a right-winger and attended meetings, in order to collect intelligence information, and has also done some dumpster-diving. But I don't think he pretends to be a journalist -- or at least he's not a mainstream journalist. I also don't think Berlet would be able to get a Senate gallery press pass.

I recall that during Watergate, Woodward and Bernstein got some court records through slightly inappropriate means. If the story is big enough, you can get away with extraordinary techniques.

The bottom line is that if journalism had a tradition of constantly ignoring these basic guidelines, then there wouldn't be any such thing as journalism by now. No one would want to talk to them.

Look at this from the point of view of the person interviewed. Let's say it's a member of Congress. In the first hypothetical case, the person known as Katefan0 on Wikipedia says, "Hi. This is (name redacted) from the Congressional Quarterly. Can I ask you about so-and-so?"

In the second hypothetical case, she says, "Hi. This is (name redacted) from the Congressional Quarterly, but I'm also an anonymous administrator on Wikipedia and I play with articles about members of Congress and their politics. You don't know who I am on Wikipedia, so you won't be able to hold me accountable. Can I ask you about so-and-so?"

If you are a Congressman, would you talk to the reporter in the second hypothetical case? Not unless you're crazy. If you do, it's all going to be puff and fluff, because you cannot expect that reporter to treat any extra information you give her in a professional manner. If you give her information on background, it won't end up in the Congressional Quarterly, but you cannot assume that it won't show up on Wikipedia somewhere. That's because if it does show up on Wikipedia, you cannot prove who was responsible. You're already in a no-win situation in the second hypothetical situation.

That's why she should never have edited Wikipedia under a pseudonym while she is a professional journalist. In the long run, if enough journalists did the same thing it would damage the profession. It's not a question of whether her specific edits on Wikipedia were harmless (they probably were harmless -- I haven't studied them). It's more an issue of how she could have made them harmful if she was inclined to do so at some point in the future.

[Skyring]

She says, "Hi. This is (name redacted) from the Congressional Quarterly, but I'm also an anonymous administrator on Wikipedia and I play with articles about members of Congress and their politics. You don't know who I am on Wikipedia, so you won't be able to hold me accountable. Can I ask you about so-and-so?"

If you are a Congressman, would you talk to the reporter in the second hypothetical case? Not unless you're crazy. If you do, it's all going to be puff and fluff, because you cannot expect that reporter to treat any extra information you give her in a professional manner. If you give her information on background, it won't end up in the Congressional Quarterly, but you cannot assume that it won't show up on Wikipedia somewhere. That's because if it does show up on Wikipedia, you cannot prove who was responsible. You're already in a no-win situation in the second hypothetical situation.

But as I've noted, editorials are often political in nature and traditionally unsigned. General news stories of a political nature (especially on wire services) are likewise unsigned. Political news stories on radio are unsigned - the person reading the story probably didn't write it. A congressman reading an editorial about himself can ring up the newspaper and bluster until he is blue in the face, the newspaper will not reveal who wrote the editorial. Not unless they feel like telling, which is very rare.

By allowing anonymous editing, Wikipedia is taking responsibility for content produced in such a way. It cannot be otherwise, because some edits simply cannot be traced. To an open proxy, an internet cafe, an unguarded wireless network - who is responsible?

[Skyring]

Wikipedia is just a website.... It's not real life.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The notion that anything in life is "not real life" is at most an expedient construct intended to define priorities in real life.

Everything in life is as real as it gets. What is less real about Wikipedia, or about any networked communication than a face-to-face conversation? If you call your grandmother on the telephone, have you not really communicated with her?

You're splitting hairs here. I agree with your argument, and it comes down to priorities. Sure, you spend time on WP and have various activities you do there, and yes, that is real life time you've spent. But this doesn't feed, clothe and shelter you. It's not something tangible, unless you want to embrace your keyboard. It's cyberspace, the same space where you hold your conversation with your grandmother, and we all know the difference between your cyberlife and your Real Life. It's abbreviated RL and it's common usage. RL isn't the totality of what you do, it's the stuff you do away outside cyberspace.

When I say that Wikipedia is just a website, that's precisely what I mean. The laws and punishments, rewards and community have no power over your real life except to make you feel warm and fuzzy, angry and stressed and so on. I that sense, it's a television show or a novel - flickers on a screen or words on a page. Real life laws and punishments are different and they affect your real life. You might still feel angry and stressed about being sent to prison, but you'll be feeling those emotions in a cellblock with a bunch of seedy companions, not safely at home in a comfortable chair.

So when Katefan0 chose between WP and RL, she acted in her best interests, and I am sorry that she was forced into that choice, because it seems to me that this clever detective work has had an unfortunate effect on both WP and WR.

[Daniel Brandt]

By allowing anonymous editing, Wikipedia is taking responsibility for content produced in such a way. It cannot be otherwise, because some edits simply cannot be traced.

That's what I've been trying say for months now. But Jimbo says that Wikipedia is immune under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act because Wikipedia is an interactive service provider.

About the unsigned news articles: This woman is a reporter, not someone who officially editorializes for her employer. I see lots of places where her by-line is on her articles. Even with unsigned articles, if the subject of an interview has a complaint, he can talk to the editor, and the editor will -- you can be sure -- talk with the reporter to find out what's going on. The reporter knows that acceptable performance is a condition of continued employment. In other words, the reporter still feels accountable.

That's quite different from the culture that exists at Wikipedia. I'm not even going to talk about the teenage admins at Wikipedia, or loose cannons like SlimVirgin, because I get angry and start missing keys on the keyboard.

[Skyring]

That's quite different from the culture that exists at Wikipedia. I'm not even going to talk about the teenage admins at Wikipedia, or loose cannons like SlimVirgin, because I get angry and start missing keys on the keyboard.

Oh, I agree entrely!

So many admins are on an ego trip. I see numerous examples where admin actions amount to just plain bullying. Bash a newbie over content, block them without warning, abuse them when they can't answer back. It's a vicious circle. Jimbo doesn't have to search his soul over semi-protection. The more tales there are from people trying to correct mistakes in WP who get kicked in the face and then beaten up by a gang of thugs, the more people will come to realise that WP isn't an encyclopaedia anyone can edit.

[amorrow]

I will simply refer to the User:Husnock affair:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hus...ation.2C_please

:::::Wikipedia isn't a free speech zone, and someone's right to post here ends at the point at which they place another editor in real-life danger of being threatened or harrassed. Not to mention the fact that since he's an indefinitely banned user, his posts and edits are to be reverted, everywhere and anywhere. Indefinitely banned users are no longer welcome on Wikipedia in any shape or form (Roitr included), but harrassers are especially unwelcome. Also, what non-admins are you talking about? Will Beback, FeloniousMonk, myself, SlimVigin and Musical Linguist are '''all''' admins. Katefan0 13:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

And so, Katefan0, or may I call you "Kathy"? What you doing was supressing the memory my father, William Knight Morrow, a vetran of the United States Navy. The Unites States is a free speech zone and you and I are going to have a face-to-face meeting to confirm that we both agree about that. You options are staightforward:

1. We have that meeting, you bring your face really close to mine and you tell me while staring straight in my eye that you were doing the right thing in trying to further obliterate the memory of my father.
2. You get a pre-emptive restraining order against me and get it served to me properly.
3. Pray to God that I am part of one of Bradford Patrick's "bus strories".

You can contact me at amorrow@earthlink.net for all the information you might ever need about getting that restraining order filled out.

I noticed that they are all wishing you "Good luck" on your talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Katefan0

Now that the curtain has been drawn aside, that silly "Wikipedia" web site seems like silly, little electronic whisperings, does it not?

I, here and now, wish you, a fellow U.S citizen: "Good luck, my dear!" Welcome back to the land of the free and home of the brave. I will endevour to ensure that I do not leave freedom ringing in your ears so loudly as to harm either of the choclea that God gave you. I might also send the message to you a little less loudly if I can be assured that you have properly apologized to Lieutenant.

I want to point out to you one last thing about

Occupation: Military Records Historian, National Personnel Records Center

You see? My fellow Catholic, the Lieutenant, was able to confirm that the message to him about my father was true. And now he is putting his life on the line for you and me.

As others have learned, I work slowly, ploddingly. I do not break the law (well, not recently). I just go for maximum penetration (again, à la Mr. Patrick) into the mind of others and, once in, do as I see fit to ensure that they get the message I have for them.

Life is long. Good luck, my dear. And do not forget about that apology.

BTW: Based on your DAYLO profile and the fact that I need some documents typed: Does that mean that you are my woman now?

Oh, and I see that you charge reasonable rates. Good.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

When I say that Wikipedia is just a website, that's precisely what I mean. The laws and punishments, rewards and community have no power over your real life except to make you feel warm and fuzzy, angry and stressed and so on. I that sense, it's a television show or a novel - flickers on a screen or words on a page. Real life laws and punishments are different and they affect your real life. You might still feel angry and stressed about being sent to prison, but you'll be feeling those emotions in a cellblock with a bunch of seedy companions, not safely at home in a comfortable chair.

This has been noted before -- that for the avid Wikipedian, Wikipedia becomes a combination of interactive soap opera, video game, and cybersex. But let's not forget that when someone googles the name of a prominent public figure, they are going to get a Wikipedia article somewhere near the top of the list, and if that article is biased or libelous, it has real-life consequences. If it were not for that fact, I never would have been inclined to edit Wikipedia in the first place. Slander has always offended me, because it usually goes unpunished. I naively thought that on Wikipedia, what with NPOV, V, BIO and so on, there were mechanisms to prevent it. I didn't know that there was a cabal that makes a mockery of all those policies. The admins at Wikipedia who do not fight this stuff are all complicit to some extent.

[amorrow]

That's what I was thinking....... If there wasn't any issues all she had to do was admit who she was instead of deleting her tracks or at least trying to.

Might be worth something if Daniel did file a ethic's violation on her though. A outed journalist does make the news very often especially one that used her position as a means to push her POV on wikipedia.

Oh ya... I am pretty damn sure her admin friends knew who she was. Especiall AnnH.

Oh, I am going to say it anyway: Do you not mean "...her admin girl friends knew who she was"?

You know me: just trying to keep track of the girl-cabal within the cabal.

This post has been edited by amorrow:

[Rufus]

I took a little look through some of Katefan's contributions. What did I see?

No POV pushing of any kind.

No indication that she pursued any sort of personal vendettas.

And most of all, no indication that she at any time used information acquired through her privileged position as a congressional reporter. I was not able to find any example of her adding information that would not be equally accessible to myself, you, or any other person.

In fact, Katefan (who I had only seen mentioned in passing before today) seems to have been a defender of actual NPOV and an all around good editor. Mr. Grayban, if you have any evidence that she was publishing on WP any information that she had obtained through her job, that would be a legitimate complaint, but until you present evidence of that sort I have nothing but your presumption of guilt to go on.

I am anonymous here and on WP. One might reasonably ask why; after all, I hold myself to the same standards of behavior on WP as I do in the rest of my life, and I am not ashamed, and, indeed, am quite proud, of the work I have done there. That said, WP attracts its fair share of aggressive editors, and good behavior alone is no guarantee that one will not attract someone's malicious attention. And although I believe that my actions on WP, here, and elsewhere on the internet stand up to a high standard of scrutiny, I have no wish to be forced to explain them at length to an employer or other authority figure who wants to know why someone is badgering them with complaints about me. Anyone revealing their real name on the internet is subject to harassment from any of the great number of kooks who inhabit the place. And thus, for me, and for many others on WP, anonymity seems the best choice.

Frankly, I find Mr. Brandt's action to be highly counterproductive. Wikipedia will not be improved by exposing good contributors to petty harassment. And neither will accountability on WP. Digging for the names of contributors will not produce a climate of accountability; it will only produce an environment in which those who would prefer not to have to answer groundless questions to their employers, and who were careless enough to reveal their names are driven off, whether they were good or bad contributors. Accountability can only be created in the form of a healthy climate of constructive criticism and rigorous standards of quality. By removing from the field a contributor who worked hard to raise the standards of WP, Mr. Brandt has achieved nothing but a lowering of those standards for the future.

[Rufus]

You didn't see edit summaries claiming to revert libel and vandalism when no libel or vandalism had occured, but rather where other editors were trying to write fairly and neutrally about a member of Congress? That's what I saw. I saw flat wrong edit summaries that claimed bad faith on the part of charitable contributors when it seemed Katefan0's summaries were wrong and in pure bad faith.

If this was there, I missed it. Diffs?

[Sgrayban]

I took a little look through some of Katefan's contributions. What did I see?

Mr. Rufus(how original)

I never said she pushed anything, do not twist my words, I clearly said she COULD HAVE. If anything now I believe she might have with someone using a dog's name to hide behind and then call me a liar and tell me they went through all her edit history to tell me she did not push at one time any POV or abuse of adminship.

If you have gone through all her edits then you also know that she edited current Congressional Members articles. As a journalist she knew that is a conflict of interest for a start.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

You know me: just trying to keep track of the girl-cabal within the cabal.

Well, we do know you, amorrow, and you are a bit of a broken record on the gender issue. Since the members of the cabal take pains to hide their identities, how do you really know who is female or male? For all you know, they could all be transgendered like the guy/gal Daniel outed, or wannabes role-playing in cyberspace. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I took a little look through some of Katefan's contributions. What did I see?

No POV pushing of any kind.

No indication that she pursued any sort of personal vendettas.

And most of all, no indication that she at any time used information acquired through her privileged position as a congressional reporter. I was not able to find any example of her adding information that would not be equally accessible to myself, you, or any other person.

...By removing from the field a contributor who worked hard to raise the standards of WP, Mr. Brandt has achieved nothing but a lowering of those standards for the future.

This is a complicated issue, but I would like to add a few observations. Katefan evidently felt there was some impropriety, or she would not have left Wikipedia after being outed. And I know personally of numerous editors, all of whom "worked hard to raise the standards of WP," who were banned on a whim by SlimVirgin or others from her POV posse (and I note that these posse members are among those sending messages of support to Katefan.) I suspect that every member of this forum can cite similar examples. Until Wikipedia finds a means to rein in those admins who wage POV warfare dishonestly, via abuse of administrative powers, it is pointless to debate whether Wikipedia was harmed by the loss of Katefan.

[Rufus]

They refer to libel and vandalism, but there is no libel and vandalism in the diffs she reverts.

I assume the cases you're talking about are the edit summary for the sprotect on [[Robert Byrd]] and the block on the IP editing [[Hawaii]]. In the Robert Byrd case, as you can see from the request for protection and examining the history of the article, an IP editor had been inserting the claim that Byrd was still in the Klan, without a source--which strikes me as libelous. As to the vandalism, the IP editor on Hawaii had been repeatedly removing links from the external links section without giving a reason. I don't see anything wrong with Katefan's action in either of those cases, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Katefan evidently felt there was some impropriety, or she would not have left Wikipedia after being outed.

I disagree; as I was saying above, good behavior is no defense against some of the people you meet on the internet; just because someone is acting legitimately doesn't mean they want to have to demonstrate that to their boss when some random person decides to raise trouble.

Until Wikipedia finds a means to rein in those admins who wage POV warfare dishonestly, via abuse of administrative powers, it is pointless to debate whether Wikipedia was harmed by the loss of Katefan.

I see where you're coming from on this, but two wrongs don't make a right. And while I can understand how others might disagree, I don't think that the existence of bad admins makes the existence of good admins worthless.

[Skyring]

Katefan evidently felt there was some impropriety, or she would not have left Wikipedia after being outed.

Well, I don't know that you can say that impropriety is THE reason. It might have just been a genuine desire for privacy. I notice that she revealed who she was early on and later removed it.

Honestly, I don't know all the ins and outs, but from what I have seen and what has been discussed, she doesn't seem to have done anything improper or to have acted in any way other than what a good WP admin and editor should. Hassling WP editors for the sake of it is counter-productive. Far better to do so in a way that exposes wrong-doing and hypocrisy.

At this point, may I suggest a careful reading of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War, which is a classic textbook on how to handle conflict. It is not limited to war (and in any case it discusses things like chariots and archers) but rather to conflict as a concept, and has been very successfully applied in the fields of management and sports. It can be summarised:
* Know yourself
* Know your enemy
* Think begore acting
* Only fight battles you will win

This post has been edited by Skyring:

[Skyring]

At this point, may I suggest a careful reading of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War, which is a classic textbook on how to handle conflict.

Why do you presume we are not well read in classic documents related to conflict?

Because fighting a battle that does not advance any defined aim is wasted effort.

For one thing, Katefan0 was not a bad admin or editor. I haven't seen any diffs that convince me otherwise. She enjoyed being part of the peer group and participating in improving WP. She was well regarded all round. I can't see any good reason to wish her gone.

I don't buy the journalistic ethics argument either. Even if there were some appalling breach of journalistic ethics, we aren't the journalist ethics enforcement committee. Why on earth should we care?

While I applaud the detective work required to unmask her, I question using the information without some definite aim in mind.

There's a whole bunch of established WP admins and editors who are well worth attacking, but not just for the sake of attacking them. Attack them in such a way that their sins are highlighted for all to see.

Likewise the Phil S business. What purpose did having the cops come and monster him serve? It embarrassed and inconvenienced him, sure, but I don't think he's likely to leave WP or his studies over it. He seems to have been supported by the academic staff, at least in his telling of the story.

I mention Sun Tzu because he distills the essence of conflict into a few maxims.

Understand the enemy - learn everything about your opponents. Their real names, their allies, their faults, their weaknesses. Use any means necessary, and Sun Tzu's final chapter on the employment of spies is one of the most important in the book. Knowledge is power.

Understand yourself. What are your capabilities, your skills, your objectives? What are your weaknesses? You want to match your strengths against the opponent's weaknesses, not the other way around.

Think before acting. Know your aim and work out how to achieve it. Beware of ambushes and treachery. Examine the opponent's options and your own. Prepare plans to ensure that the battle goes as you wish it to.

Pick your battles. Only fight if you are absolutely convinced that you can win. Otherwise just let it through to the keeper.

[Daniel Brandt]

I'm getting angry with those who fail to see that there was an issue of journalistic ethics involved, even if it only involved an appearance of a conflict of interest.

I'm beginning to feel that her swan song on her Talk page should have been more of an apology and less of an implicit attack on me.

Accordingly, I have emailed Kelly McBride, the ethics columnist at the Poynter Institute, and asked her to interview her. We need to hear from other professional jouranlists about who is right in this situation and who is wrong. Here is a copy of that email, minus my personal contact information:

kmcbride at poynter.org

Dear Ms. McBride:

I think you should interview a reporter for the Congressional Quarterly, (name redacted). Two days ago I did online research and discovered that this was her real identity. My interest in her was initiated by the fact that she is an anonymous administrator at Wikipedia.

I have a problem with Wikipedia, and am trying to identify as many of the 900 administrators as I can. Over half of them use pseudonyms on Wikipedia. Some of them are impossible to trace, while others have inadvertently left sufficient evidence on the web in various places, so that with several hours of online research, and some luck, I can figure out their real identity.

Katefan0 (that's a zero on the end) was her user name. She mentioned that she was a journalist in Washington DC on her user page. This interested me because I feel that it is a conflict of interest for a journalist to use a pseudonym and edit Wikipedia.

The situation was compounded by the fact that she is an administrator. She has the power to block other editors, protect pages from editing, or delete pages. In other words, the power to shape content beyond that which mere Wikipedia editors are given.

When I figured out her identity, it turned out that she is on the Congressional beat and has a Senate gallery press pass. It was also evident from her history of edits on Wikipedia that she did not feel the need to recuse herself from edits on articles about members of Congress.

I asked her to identify herself on her user page, and state that she was employed by the Congressional Quarterly. I did this because in addition to the fact that I'm trying to identify all administrators at Wikipedia, this case seemed to present a clear conflict of interest. I believe it was a violation of professional journalistic ethics for her to continue to remain anonymous as a Wikipedia administrator.

She left Wikipedia that same day. Her swan song, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Katefan0 was an effort to put me on the defensive. Now I'm taking a lot of heat from her colleagues at Wikipedia, who are calling me names on their IRC channel. An example on the Talk page of my own biography -- a biography that I've been trying unsuccessfully to get deleted for seven months now -- is at the bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Daniel_Brandt

There is a long thread at http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=1422 where I have explained a number of details and defended myself. My interest in having Poynter discuss this is to get some input from professional journalists on the ethical issues I've tried to raise. Katefan0's colleagues at Wikipedia who are denouncing me seem to have little awareness of these ethical issues.

Regards,
Daniel Brandt, president
Public Information Research, Inc.
www.wikipedia-watch.org

[amorrow]

Let's get a few things straight here:

Katefan0 says on her talk page: "...elderly parent who depends on me". Now, that may not mean that this elderly person is an invalid - it may just suggest emotional dependence. But nonetheless, it does set a boundary on how far you should go towards any notion that her activities in cyberspace now require accountabilty out "in the real world".

She is obviously a junior member of her organization (as is Gator1). Unlike Gator1, we can be almost certain that at least one person (I do not mean Daniel or anyone specifcally - I am just talking engnieering statistics here) will contact the management of CQ and it will be up to that management to sit there and put up with it. It will matter if she can say the she never used CQ resources, but that is her problem.

I note that Katefan0 has does some reverting and some blocking of what she felt were my activities. I will say that she never got high on my own mental list of who I thought was doing that the most.

In particular, I noticed that she did not join this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ifficult_blocks

and neither did "Musical Linguist." There is still hope for those two.

I want to make another observation: I believe "Katefan0" when states that this period and event "caps off a long two months of reevaluating whether volunteering here (at Wikipedia®) is worth it". That is a much more personal statement. She was already having her doubts about her role as admin? I tend to believe her statement. I believe that she was reaching a plateau. The sense that the article you write or attempt to defend, even if it is a good one, is a sand castle, of a sort. It is not that it will disappear completely, but it will morph in both good and bad ways with time.

I do hope that the other do not make some kind of martyr out of her. I notice that Mark Gallagher seems to be making quite a fuss about me over at WikiEN-l . Here is the deal Mark: I do encourage Daniel in a general sense to continue in his efforts, but Daniel did that one without any help from me. In fact, I do not recall providing him with any pointers outside of specific content within wikipedia.org or top-level web site locations. I do not feel especially sorry for Kathy, partially because I do not know that anything bad in real life has or will happen to her because of this out'ting. If somebody wants to let me know that something bad happened IRL, I am perfectly capable of feeling sympathy and regret for others, even my enemies (of which, as a Catholic, I feel that I only have a few - certainly not Kathy). While she displayed some hypocrisy, I assert here that I do not personally feel the need to contact her employer.

There is no doubt in my mind that she will be back anonymously. Overall, I feel that she is basically good-intentioned and believes in the mission of the project. She can also see that the job can get done with or without her admin actions. She can always just signal some other admin about subtantial problems that require privileged intervention.

[amorrow]

I should mention that my previous post has sat in my browser for much of the day. It appears to come an hour after Daniel posted his letter, but I did not know about Daniel's post until after I posted. Would I have refrained from my post if I had seen Daniel's. Mabye. Oh, I do not know. Anyway...

My expectation: Since Kelly McBride is in St. Petersburg and Kathy is in D.C., if she contacts Kathy at all, it will be with a supportive message. If they were in the same city, I bet that Kelly would buy Kathy lunch just to let her know that everything is going to be OK. More likely, she will not touch the thing. If she wanted to interview anyone, she would just go across town and interview Jimmy. (Maybe that is your plan anyway, Daniel; I do not know).

If you do not already know Ms. McBride, check out this

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4560708

(You know, it is the Terri Schiavo article that messed me up in February. It never occurred to me that it was in St. Petersburg, as is the Foundation. Huh. So that story was on Jimbo's mind last year. I never made that connection before. Huh.).

Anyway, I did also take a look at Phaedriel and also at http://www.ocpd.com/ . Now, the OCPD site has a "Fallen Heros" section there that are TRUE heros. Policemen (the good guys) killed in the line of duty. Compared to that, all this cyberspace drama is just digital pixie dust. It is quite approriate today or tomorrow. Personally, I tend to include the police in my Memorial Day observances.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Daniel_B...Dear_Mr._Brandt

Now that message on Talk:Daniel_Brandt. It sounds heartfelt. I can understand the perspective. But I want to point out something: Look at Phaedriel's "Time of Day" and "Time of Week" charts:

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bi...dbname=enwiki_p

Strong pattern established. She is Central Time (five hours diff) and so it is safe to assume that she does her work at home, starting at around 5 PM (and she problaby goes to bed a little earlier than most of us). There is some smear in these charts with daylight savings time and weekends and whatnot, but it is clear that Phaedriel has abouta four hour window to do her Wikipedia work.

Now we look at Katefan0, who is Eastern Time:

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bi...dbname=enwiki_p

A different picture. Much wider hump spread over the business day (rounghly 9AM to 8PM). She was doing a lot of her edits from work. She had made a few comments about just "keeping her job", but I do not know why. Again, I believe that Kathryn was re-considering her situation. Wikipedia is habit-forming for some people.

So you see, Phaedriel, there IS a difference between you and Kathy. I really do not want to see her get in trouble In Real Life (IRL). But if CQ wants to tell Kathy to keep her hobby at home, that is their business.

But if more than just her curtailment of her W activities occurs, then I expect it to make the bigger WP vs. WR (et. al.) situation to become even more polarized. I know that you young people at WP are going to get all mad and come down on people like me like a ton of bricks, just because we are a handy target. But Phaedriel, you and I know that it still often works more like a lynch more than like a proper police action.

I recognzie that Daniel chose to haul Kathy onto the carpet just because he could. But Kathy's reaction was so quick and sudden. She ran away. You have got to realize, Phaedriel, that is NOT a good sign. It is a lot like Gator1.

I realize that Kate was a relatively weak member of the herd and her time came. However, I do not think that this makes Daniel a preditor or a villain. He obtained the advantage, he tried to get her to negotiate and she sprinted away. That is a sign of weakness (or possibly wrongness) in her basic position. Daniel counter-balances the unhealthy secrecy of the admins. Here in America, we do not have secret police (well, there is the Secret Service, but that is a special case). You certainly are trained in confidentiality issues both for officers and for the public they protect. We do not have secret police here in America.

We can see that those countries that still have secret police are fairly screwed-up. In that same way, Wikipedia is screwed up. Please take your time in trying to appreciate this paragraph.

Phaedriel, I noticed one other thing. You keep a few photos of yourself on your user and talk pages. Face it, dear: the boys are never going to pile up on you in some kind of tackle like the kinds that seems to happen to me every couple of months. It is easy for you to be picky about politeness. The boys are going to come to your defense, should the need arise. That is all fine and good. But for somebody like me, if I happen to occasionally descend into impoliteness, the reason is because I have a half-dozen hounds nipping at my heels. They are not being polite. They are being super-heros. And now they will be super-heros in for your sake now that Kathryn is submerged (again, I think that she will be back at Wikipedia soon enough but as a non-admin who will tend to mind her own business).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Daniel_B...Dear_Mr._Brandt

I am going to try very hard to let your message and yoru perspective sink in. Expect it to take a few weeks.

Phaedriel, I want you to step back recognize that whatever is going happen to Kate is going to happen. If Daniel takes a few more actions, people like you and I should just accept that he is free to do so.

It is perfectly normal to look at what is happening as a polarizing event. I am saying that it does not have to be that way. Phaedriel, you are still on the inside. I do not know if you are a police officer, but you certainly know that an officer's job is to defuse the situation. I am not going to write five more paragraphs about how to do that. I just want you to get over your feelings of hurt about Kate (OK, if she got in trouble IRL, then would someone be kind enough to clue me in because I DO NOT KNOW) and ask yourself: is there any way this event can be an opportunity to DEFUSE the larger situation? To take a step in the direction of rehabilitiating some of these outcasts here at Wikipedia Review?

Let me make one suggestion as a small step in that direction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lis...d_users#Amorrow

10 months ago, did I make a death threat? Read it carefully. Is that really the appropraite way to label that link? Geni never called it a death threat. But somehow now, it has turned into one.

What is happening (and I do not really care about that stupid label on my listing) is a that the process is dumbing down. It is getting more polarized and it is getting worse. Phaedriel, take a look at the big picture. Take a look at the activities of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ifficult_blocks

Is this really the direction we want things to go in? Take a look at the extensive anti-Amorrow activities of Musical_Linguist and FloNight. Is that really healthy? (I assert that what Jimbo does not really matter in my case. He is emotionally involved and so, in this my case, the emperor has no clothes).

Phaedriel, get beyond your hurt and sympathy for Kathy. Find a way to make the larger picture better. Here, forget about my specific issues. Just read one thing, which I started back in October:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Magee_%28bomber%29

Take a hint from Jo Tufnell. Turn this situation around and use it as an opportunity to build bridges. I cannot guarantee that you will succeed, but I can promise you that it will be difficult - as is anything worth suffering for.

[amorrow]

Slim: I see that User:Sceptre has so unwisely chosen to link from the Brandt talk page to here. Go sic 'em girl. I will give you a doggie biscuit after you have given him a good whack. Hurry back! You go, girl!

BTW: I am not joking: just for credibility's sake: before I started to use this taunt, I went out and bought a small box of doggie biscuits and, over a period of about a week,, ate about 1/3 of them before throwing out the rest. They have no sugar or salt added, so they taste a lot like Stone Ground Wheat Crackers. Remember: we are not talking about wet dog food. I do play practical jokes and I do joke around, but in this particular case, since we are dealing with Slim, I am completely serious.

Slim: If we ever should meet: I challenge you now to a doggie biscuit eating contest. I will go and determine if the brand I have in mind is Kohser. So there!


This post has been edited by amorrow:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

For one thing, Katefan0 was not a bad admin or editor. I haven't seen any diffs that convince me otherwise. She enjoyed being part of the peer group and participating in improving WP. She was well regarded all round. I can't see any good reason to wish her gone.

I was trying to recall where and when I had encountered Katefan0 at Wikipedia. Now I know. She spoke for the cabal here in the second SlimVirgin RfC. I no longer am inclined to feel any sympathy for her.

[blissyu2]

Apologies for not noticing this thread before, so here we go.

I never met Katefan0. I saw some of her actions, and some of them seemed to be pretty woeful, but I wouldn't list her in the cabal, or anywhere near there. She seems to be half decent. She hasn't been mentioned here before, so this would suggest that she is probably basically okay. Yes, she has unfairly blocked before. Yes, she has deleted content, reverted, etc. But not enough to warrant a huge criticism based on her actions.

However, if we've learned nothing more from the Congress staffers fiasco, we would know that people are using Wikipedia to make money. For some people, like Wikipedia administrator Alkivar, it is rather blatant - he advertises for his DJ business (and then turns around and claims he is being stalked because someone reposts his phone number that is listed on his Wikipedia userpage!) For others, like Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters and Jtdirl, it is somewhat more subtle - they make an article about themselves, and then edit it to advertise themselves. And then there are the likes of Cory Doctorow, Chip Berlet and Adam Carr, who are famous people that do deserve to have a Wikipedia article, but get to have one which is 100% positive, in return for certain favours.

We all saw what happened with Snowspinner's little story, and how Cory Doctorow paid back Wikipedia's good treatment of him, allowing him to remove all criticism of him from his own Wikipedia article by pretending that Snowspinner was the victim. We've seen Chip Berlet dig up dirt on Daniel Brandt in return for Wikipedia allowing him to be painted as a saint. And we've of course seen Adam Carr's antics.

And what about Katefan0? I can't see any bad things that she's done, but that doesn't mean that she hasn't done them. She is editing articles about the Congress, articles which she has a vested interested in. Articles which we know full well could lead to her making money from. She could be editing them so as to give herself stories that make her look better. Or she could be changing facts so that she gets to make black look like white. And not only could this be happening to make her money, but it might be at the expense of truth.

Haven't we seen enough podcasts and exposes on just how easy it is to change articles to see that people can use them to make money? What if the people who were doing the Congress staffers story found out that she was working there, as an admin, while being a member of the Congress press? That'd be a huge scandal. And indeed, once that was pointed out by Daniel Brandt, she had 2 choices - either to quit, or else to say who she really was.

They say oh no its black mail, but what money has Daniel Brandt asked for? Has he asked for anything? Indeed, I can't see him asking for anything at all. This has been used by Wikipedia zealots to insist that this forum is awful.

Sure, we do criticise admins who are corrupt, but that's not the entirety of criticism. My criticism of the Port Arthur massacre article is not in relation to corrupt admins at all - it is about inaccurate content that changes history. And it is that kind of criticism that relates to Katefan0. We are not talking about a corrupt admin. She isn't banning users unfairly. She isn't hurting any other users on the Wikipedia. But she is changing history.

If people get banned, who cares? It doesn't really make a difference. But if truth is changed, then that is a much more serious issue.

I was trying to recall where and when I had encountered Katefan0 at Wikipedia. Now I know. She spoke for the cabal here in the second SlimVirgin RfC. I no longer am inclined to feel any sympathy for her.

I wrote on the same RFC in support of Slim Virgin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...by_User:Zordrac

Was I speaking for the cabal too? Of course, that was before I found out about just how awful Slim Virgin was.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I wrote on the same RFC in support of Slim Virgin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...by_User:Zordrac

Was I speaking for the cabal too? Of course, that was before I found out about just how awful Slim Virgin was.

I don't think you were speaking for the cabal, because Willmcw and co. didn't endorse your comment.

My modest claim to fame may be that I was one of the very first to find out just how awful SlimVirgin was.

[Avillia]

First off she broke federal guildelines when she edited on WP since she has a Senate Gallery Pass which gives her full access to all proceedings or at least the majority of them.

Gallery press passes have no such guidelines, as far as I am aware or as far as I could find via reliable sources.

She made edits on political figures currently in office most likely based on the information she had gotten. When she edited she most likely broke the ethic rules on passing information from the Senate floor to WP and the congressional members articles on WP. If she added or edited anything that was ruled confidential she could be in serious trouble with the US Gov. or at the very least the congressional members.

Skimming through her last 500 edits, there is not a single edit changing content in relation to a congressional figure. There is copyediting, there is vandalism reversion, and there is semi-protection. No content overhauls as was the case with the RfC for the United States Congress.

On another note to Daniel Brandt; This sort of thing is harming your cause rather than helping it. The more-so administrators are subject to what is viewed as forceful harassment, the less likely they are to reveal their identity as are your wishes. This is going to shift people in the other direction; To slap together such layers of subterfuge as to prevent any connection to their real lives, rather than acknowledge liability by a public connection.

This post has been edited by Avillia:

[blissyu2]

So why not leave it up to her boss to determine if she's done something wrong? Was this about blackmail? Or was this because we thought that someone might have done something wrong? Or was it just about talking about someone? From what I can gather the right thing to do is to contact her work and see how they feel.