Proabivouac's question, (split from "hi") Options

[FT2]

This is big enough for a thread to itself. It's split from "hi", into 2 posts.

FT2, per your earlier comments, there is much here to discuss. However, since you mentioned a lack of appreciable interaction between us, I believe I first heard of you when you showed up out of nowhere - presumably solicited from IRC - and, without warning, blocked me for a week for attempting to warn contributors that if they use their real name, they are likely to be attacked under that name on Wikipedia. Perhaps just another routine meatpuppet/adminpuppet block for you, but it made an impression on me. The second interaction between us was your and JzG's deletion of my very detailed and accurate sockpuppet reports (Oldwindybear, Orderinchaos, the first resigned, the second still an administrator) and subsequent indefinite block of my account - immediately overturned, but leaving a very false charge of "harassment" in my account history.

This seems to be a big one for you. For me, it was something I had no stake in, nor a big deal. It was a routine admin action as you say. You were not just "warning people" as your post suggests, though. if you want to look at the case though, for anyone else this is the link.

Uninvolved administrators routinely get asked to look at difficult or contested matters. I was asked in your case for two reasons - I have no prior "history" and had never heard of your name, and, it was a delicate situation and I tend to be very careful to review those for myself and not assume. My full post is linked above.

Reviewing your edit from almost a year later, I would probably say that it was trying to make a point disruptively, and also, that underneath there was something valid to it. In other words, it is worth saying, "we can't guarantee stuff wont happen thats bad". But you were making edits that together, were disruptive on that general theme, rather than collaborative, and you had a specific sanction because of past disruptive actions, to the effect of "don't do it any more". You know well that introducing a "well by this standard I think wikipedia is X" into a policy page is at best, [[WP:POINT]], and at worst plain disruptive and poor judgement. Whether or not it is factually so, the edit was uunhelpful and that is what I reviewed for. You may want to help newcomers, but not by making disruptive "POINTy" edits. My regrets on the block notice were genuine, if that means anything, but the assessment was neutral and would have been the same for anybody else who made edits of that kind when they knew better and under sanction. That's why you were blocked. I'm sorry it's taken nearly a year for you to feel able to ask more, but I'm glad you have, and if this doesn't satisfy then at least maybe it says "it wasn't malicious".

The page deletions are much easier. I was asked to look at those, and indeed we do have a policy on them. My post to you is here. You'll see this was a case where in July/August 2007 you prepared evidence pages for cases, but they weren't used as at April 2008. We have a standing norm that userspace pages like this are aimed for imminent use, you weren't editing or showing any signs of using them, and they were so old as to be doubtful if the events they showed would have been evidence for any current matter. Even so you'll see I didn't delete them. I blanked them - that is, added a "blank revision" which you could easily undo via history to get the version you edited, if you ever needed it. I also explained it on your talk page (slightly wrongly as you didn't need help to get your text back). Again, I'd have done the same for any very old "evidence page" I was asked about in anyone's userspace, including my own. It wasn't personal, and didn't delete it if ever needed again. But keeping it hanging there endlessly, for no reason, with no likely usage - not a good use of userspace.

Hope that helps clear it up a bit, if not completely reassures.

[FT2]

So, two more questions for now:

1) Given that you're so protective of your pseudonymity, why did you join in violating mine, and in ensuring that Wikipedia doesn't fairly warn new volunteer contributors of what can happen there?

Glad you asked. If you feel I have unnecessarily given publicly any information about you that I shouldn't have, please let me know. You don't say so above, so the first point kind of hangs in the air unattached to anything. And no, I'm not specially careful of my pseudonymity. It's a website, not the CIA. I just don't much feel an obligation to agonize over it, or to correct others' assumptions or mis-assumptions.

As for the second point, you probably don't realize this; I'm one of the more active users in the area you name. I just don't make a big noise about it. Ensuring Wikipedia informs users of important matters, is a major area of mine. A few sample contributions related to privacy/harassment/blocks:

• Created account creation warning - added this text to warn newcomers what can happen, at the point of account creation:
  [...] All edits to the encyclopedia are permanently recorded, and publicly visible in the history of any page you edit, as well as on discussion pages. If you use your real name, or a username that you go by elsewhere, people looking you up on the internet may see your username and others' comments on your editing. If your editing happens to cause concern, there may be discussion linked to your username.
• Created emailuser logging warning - link
• Independently proposed __NOINDEX__/__NOSPIDER__ request - link
• Added the header and section on "dealing with harassment" - link (and also the similar section for admins being harassed)
• Proposed the email footer that covers privacy and anti-harassment issues - link
• Added the project page instructions how to deal with email harassment and ensure email privacy - old new
• (With Jayvdb:) talk page discussion and edit to [[WP:BLP]] concerning default to delete if no consensus - edit (talk page post)
• Wrote the first help page for BLP subjects to understand how to get a problem changed and get Wikipedia on their side and not get blocked by mistake - link
• Wrote the block information page that actually tells people how to appeal a block effectively, as well as the block message - eg, MediaWiki:Blockedtext

2) What benefit do you see in covering up evidence of administrator sockpuppetry and dishonesty?

It can depend. Cases vary tremedously on what handling might be best overall. For example, in Archtransit's case I was the arbitrator mostly responsible for ensuring full open disclosure was made. I judged the user would try again and was not prepared to have another "runcorn drama" due to Arbcom not providing the information to the community up front. When I saw that work, I did the same again on the Poetlister unblock - ensure the case background was provided to the community to show why the socking was felt to be "compellingly shown" and why the unblock was being done (although to my mind this would have been better if explained in 2007, I understand why it was not.)

By contrast in the JoshuaZ and the recent admin password sharing cases, I endorsed a quiet approach since our aim is what benefits the project most, and in those cases the users were visibly willing to accept there was serious evidence, and to request a desysop voluntarily. (Also in the JoshuaZ case, there were some who felt puzzled despite the evidence, that socking was highly unlikely and that more investigation would be good; interim removal of the tools without a loud noise is fine, while such inquiry is continuing). Obviously some will feel that everything bad should be "publicly shamed with banners and trumpets", but I don't always agree with that as a philosophy.

This post has been edited by FT2: Mon 1st September 2008, 4:48am